Post the Experiment

[jc456]

jc, stop spamming. That's against the board rules.

And while lying is not against board rules, you should stop doing that as well, just out of decency.

Did you post an experiment? I'm the OP you fool. How can I spam my own thread when you haven't even addressed the op? Fool it seems you are the spammer!

 

[jc456]

Tuesday and there are still:

 

[jc456]

jc, stop spamming. That's against the board rules.

And while lying is not against board rules, you should stop doing that as well, just out of decency.

yo tooth, have you got that experiment yet?

 

[jc456]

Tuesday and there are still:

View attachment 38027View attachment 38028

 

[Crick]

Yes, you can spam your own thread.

God are you stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, you can spam your own thread.

God are you stupid.

And without knowing exactly how each gas responds in our OPEN atmosphere all these posts are irrelevant ,as they do not explain why any GHG holds or reflects heat nor do they explain why water vapor will null all of CO2's potential warming through the convection cycle. A bunch of nice pictures but no context. One big heap of garbage devoid of context.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.

That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.

^ No experiment posted

 

[Crick]

The results of numerous experiments posted. Apparently not everyone equipped with sufficient intelligence to recognize the facts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The results of numerous experiments posted. Apparently not everyone equipped with sufficient intelligence to recognize the facts.

Specific science designed to show what trace gases can do in a closed lab environment, every single one of them.. Still no context or proof to show how the earths complex atmosphere works however...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, you can spam your own thread.

God are you stupid.

and not one chart addresses the OP

Amazing

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The experiment was done in 1858, by John Tyndall. And has been supported by every similiar experiment since then. That you are a silly liar is self evident.

tyndell tested 120PPM of CO2?

Are you sure???

 

[Crick]

Do you think 120 ppm would behave in a qualitatively different manner than would 100 ppm or 200 ppm? The human-added CO2 only recently reached 120 ppm. Why do you insist on that amount? Could it be because you don't really want an answer? You've already been shown numerous experiments and the results from many more but you and the rest of the deniers here continue to insist you have not. Did you note that the last absorption spectra I posted yesterday was scaled in W/m^2?. Does that mean anything to you?

 

[depotoo]

Data results based on faulty models and manipulated data.

jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.

That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you think 120 ppm would behave in a qualitatively different manner than would 100 ppm or 200 ppm? The human-added CO2 only recently reached 120 ppm. Why do you insist on that amount? Could it be because you don't really want an answer? You've already been shown numerous experiments and the results from many more but you and the rest of the deniers here continue to insist you have not. Did you note that the last absorption spectra I posted yesterday was scaled in W/m^2?. Does that mean anything to you?

Equipment today is far more sensitive than in Tyndall's time when they thought phrenology was real science.

Why don't you show us the lab work that tests for temperature increase from 300 to 400PPM CO2?

 

[Crick]

We have. Just as we've shown you work from 120 ppm. Why don't you answer the question. Why do you (or jc, or whoever started this thread) want to see 120 ppm?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you think 120 ppm would behave in a qualitatively different manner than would 100 ppm or 200 ppm? The human-added CO2 only recently reached 120 ppm. Why do you insist on that amount? Could it be because you don't really want an answer? You've already been shown numerous experiments and the results from many more but you and the rest of the deniers here continue to insist you have not. Did you note that the last absorption spectra I posted yesterday was scaled in W/m^2?. Does that mean anything to you?

You keep telling us that humans increased CO2 from 280 to 400, or are you denying that as well?

 

[Crick]

Read more carefully. Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.

Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2. You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed. You wanted temperature. This is energy flux - even better.

BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for. Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out). Neither of these are standardized scenarios. There is a reason you can't find such data.

And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it. You didn't know any better.

 

[Crick]

Yes, you can spam your own thread.

God are you stupid.

And without knowing exactly how each gas responds in our OPEN atmosphere all these posts are irrelevant ,as they do not explain why any GHG holds or reflects heat nor do they explain why water vapor will null all of CO2's potential warming through the convection cycle. A bunch of nice pictures but no context. One big heap of garbage devoid of context.

God are you STUPID!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have. Just as we've shown you work from 120 ppm. Why don't you answer the question. Why do you (or jc, or whoever started this thread) want to see 120 ppm?

Show it again.

None of your charts had a temperature axis with a CO2 axis

 

[jc456]

Read more carefully. Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.

Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2. You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed. You wanted temperature. This is energy flux - even better.

BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for. Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out). Neither of these are standardized scenarios. There is a reason you can't find such data.

And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it. You didn't know any better.

Too funny, you ask us why we choose 120 ppm and then agree that you arguing 280 to 400. Too too funny! What a boob