Post the Experiment

[Billy_Bob]

It is a big stretch to compare a 40% increase to a 20,000% increase.

Why didn't they produce an experiment with a 100% increase, one doubling? I can tell you why. They wouldn't have got a noticeable result.

Yeah, thats probably right with an experiment so small compared to the hundred miles of atmosphere. At least they showed what GHGs do.

Deception is not a good thing.. The levels of CO2 used by mythbusters were so high that our earth hasn't had them in over several hundred million years. The thing about the Null Hypothesis is it still shows you are wrong even with a supported hypothesis from a lab. So a lab experiment might show minor warming but the same levels in our atmosphere might show no warming or have the opposite effect as we are seeing with CO2 in our atmosphere. Empirical evidence says our hypothesis is wrong, The Null Hypothesis simply reinforces the failure.

 

[Wuwei]

Deception is not a good thing.. The levels of CO2 used by mythbusters were so high that our earth hasn't had them in over several hundred million years. The thing about the Null Hypothesis is it still shows you are wrong even with a supported hypothesis from a lab. So a lab experiment might show minor warming but the same levels in our atmosphere might show no warming or have the opposite effect as we are seeing with CO2 in our atmosphere. Empirical evidence says our hypothesis is wrong, The Null Hypothesis simply reinforces the failure.

That is common knowledge. Your points have been addressed in the previous 18 pages of posts in this thread.

 

[jc456]

bump, and still today May 5, 2015, still no experiment, 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. none, nada, zilch!!!

 

[Wuwei]

bump, and still today May 5, 2015, still no experiment, 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. none, nada, zilch!!!

Are you still chasing your tail? We went through all that before. That experiment is impossible because it would have to be miles high with a pressure decreasing to a vacuum at the top of the experiment. Also the top of the experiment must be at liquid helium temperatures, 4 deg above absolute zero.

There is no controversy between legitimate scientists - warmers or deniers - about the physical properties of CO2. Most legitimate denier scientists, including Spencer already believe that CO2 acts as a GHG.

Scientists are not interested in proving that any further. If you and others with little scientific knowledge want to deny that science, you are going to have to find a convincing experiment yourselves to attempt to prove your point.

So, still no experiment jc? none? nada? zilch? You have got to get moving on this.

 

[jc456]

bump, and still today May 5, 2015, still no experiment, 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. none, nada, zilch!!!

Are you still chasing your tail? We went through all that before. That experiment is impossible because it would have to be miles high with a pressure decreasing to a vacuum at the top of the experiment. Also the top of the experiment must be at liquid helium temperatures, 4 deg above absolute zero.

There is no controversy between legitimate scientists - warmers or deniers - about the physical properties of CO2. Most legitimate denier scientists, including Spencer already believe that CO2 acts as a GHG.

Scientists are not interested in proving that any further. If you and others with little scientific knowledge want to deny that science, you are going to have to find a convincing experiment yourselves to attempt to prove your point.

So, still no experiment jc? none? nada? zilch? You have got to get moving on this.

nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!

 

[Wuwei]

nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!

The logarithmic aspect has been covered before in post #626 in the thread Science denialism .....

I will repeat it here.
Near the end of an absorber is where the CO2 can overcome the logarithmic saturation effect and escape. That happens at the top of the atmosphere.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the Stefan-Boltzman law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered in more detail at
Simple Models of Climate
It is essential to understand that article if you want to argue the science. Simply saying that CO2 saturates does not address what is actually happening.

 

[jc456]

nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!

The logarithmic aspect has been covered before in post #626 in the thread Science denialism .....

I will repeat it here.
Near the end of an absorber is where the CO2 can overcome the logarithmic saturation effect and escape. That happens at the top of the atmosphere.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the Stefan-Boltzman law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered in more detail at
Simple Models of Climate
It is essential to understand that article if you want to argue the science. Simply saying that CO2 saturates does not address what is actually happening.

so where is the hot spot in the upper atmosphere?

 

[Billy_Bob]

nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!

The logarithmic aspect has been covered before in post #626 in the thread Science denialism .....

I will repeat it here.
Near the end of an absorber is where the CO2 can overcome the logarithmic saturation effect and escape. That happens at the top of the atmosphere.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the Stefan-Boltzman law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered in more detail at
Simple Models of Climate
It is essential to understand that article if you want to argue the science. Simply saying that CO2 saturates does not address what is actually happening.

Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Deception is not a good thing.. The levels of CO2 used by mythbusters were so high that our earth hasn't had them in over several hundred million years. The thing about the Null Hypothesis is it still shows you are wrong even with a supported hypothesis from a lab. So a lab experiment might show minor warming but the same levels in our atmosphere might show no warming or have the opposite effect as we are seeing with CO2 in our atmosphere. Empirical evidence says our hypothesis is wrong, The Null Hypothesis simply reinforces the failure.

That is common knowledge. Your points have been addressed in the previous 18 pages of posts in this thread.

Your hypothesis has failed... CO2 is NOT driving anything.. And your circular logic is a fools errand.

 

[Wuwei]

Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.

Your hypothesis has failed... CO2 is NOT driving anything.. And your circular logic is a fools errand.

What are you talking about?
1. What I posted is not my theory nor hypothesis.
2. A tropospheric hot spot was never mentioned at all in the article I cited.
3. You are blaming me for something that is totally outside of anything I said nor believe.
4. I don't believe everything in climate models.
My gosh you guys are so edgy and testy. Go snap at somebody else.

 

[jc456]

Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.

Your hypothesis has failed... CO2 is NOT driving anything.. And your circular logic is a fools errand.

What are you talking about?
1. What I posted is not my theory nor hypothesis.
2. A tropospheric hot spot was never mentioned at all in the article I cited.
3. You are blaming me for something that is totally outside of anything I said nor believe.
4. I don't believe everything in climate models.
My gosh you guys are so edgy and testy. Go snap at somebody else.

Nice retreat!

 

[Wuwei]

Nice retreat!

It was no retreat at all. You guys just made an ill-conceived assumption and made a stupid attack.

As you know, "warmer" scientists are not concerned with proving anything about CO2 in the manner of the experiment you proposed in your OP. They have no reason to do it in their own mind. So, why don't "denier" scientists propose and attempt to do the experiment and demonstrate it's failure if the deniers feel so strongly about negative results?

 

[jc456]

Nice retreat!

It was no retreat at all. You guys just made an ill-conceived assumption and made a stupid attack.

As you know, "warmer" scientists are not concerned with proving anything about CO2 in the manner of the experiment you proposed in your OP. They have no reason to do it in their own mind. So, why don't "denier" scientists propose and attempt to do the experiment and demonstrate it's failure if the deniers feel so strongly about negative results?

well we'll disagree with you ok?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.

Your hypothesis has failed... CO2 is NOT driving anything.. And your circular logic is a fools errand.

What are you talking about?
1. What I posted is not my theory nor hypothesis.
2. A tropospheric hot spot was never mentioned at all in the article I cited.
3. You are blaming me for something that is totally outside of anything I said nor believe.
4. I don't believe everything in climate models.
My gosh you guys are so edgy and testy. Go snap at somebody else.

What you posted is IPCC Bull Shit which is premised on the work of liars. THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that has no business in science. They are charlatans and whores to the communist agenda, the green agenda, the centralized one world Government and Obama agenda...

 

[IanC]

Nice retreat!

It was no retreat at all. You guys just made an ill-conceived assumption and made a stupid attack.

As you know, "warmer" scientists are not concerned with proving anything about CO2 in the manner of the experiment you proposed in your OP. They have no reason to do it in their own mind. So, why don't "denier" scientists propose and attempt to do the experiment and demonstrate it's failure if the deniers feel so strongly about negative results?

Of course there is a retreat on the warmers part!

Here on this board the mythbuster experiment was claimed to be a realistic change of GHGs instead 200 times reality. The show itself brought in a specialist to measure 'minute quantities'. Perhaps it was only misdirection and implication rather than outright lies but it was still dishonest.

The Gore/Nye experiment was an outright lie. Many other 'high school' experiments have been trotted out as proof of CO2's effect while implying they showing change at realistic increases.

Now you come along and say only an Earth sized experiment can produce the results. Why didn't you and your cohorts say that from the beginning instead of making us show your claims were bullshit?

 

[Wuwei]

well we'll disagree with you ok?

Sure. I won't hold it against you. But remember that the experiment is not possible and to continually bump up this thread is not constructive.

 

[IanC]

nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!

The logarithmic aspect has been covered before in post #626 in the thread Science denialism .....

I will repeat it here.
Near the end of an absorber is where the CO2 can overcome the logarithmic saturation effect and escape. That happens at the top of the atmosphere.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the Stefan-Boltzman law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered in more detail at
Simple Models of Climate
It is essential to understand that article if you want to argue the science. Simply saying that CO2 saturates does not address what is actually happening.

Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.

The hotspot was/is a prediction of climate models. It's not there. The Iris Effect in some form is the simplist explanation why it isn't. And that means the energy is gone not 'missing'.

 

[Wuwei]

What you posted is IPCC Bull Shit which is premised on the work of liars. THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that has no business in science. They are charlatans and whores to the communist agenda, the green agenda, the centralized one world Government and Obama agenda...

You are still a bit testy. It seems that what you are saying is that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. That was the major point I recently made, and that point came from the reference I cited. Both warmer and denier scientists believe that point. If you want to despise the IPCC and warmer scientists for other things, so be it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

well we'll disagree with you ok?

Sure. I won't hold it against you. But remember that the experiment is not possible and to continually bump up this thread is not constructive.

Actually it is... Only an alarmist would not want his lie exposed. The experiment is possible, if done in sections. A simple box filled with CO2 is not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What you posted is IPCC Bull Shit which is premised on the work of liars. THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that has no business in science. They are charlatans and whores to the communist agenda, the green agenda, the centralized one world Government and Obama agenda...

You are still a bit testy. It seems that what you are saying is that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. That was the major point I recently made, and that point came from the reference I cited. Both warmer and denier scientists believe that point. If you want to despise the IPCC and warmer scientists for other things, so be it.

TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.