This Will Be The Test For Man Made Climate Change

[toobfreak]

I don't know about that but I wonder why someone doesn't set up a simple experiment with two identical boxes and light sources, one filled with CO2 free air and the other filled with 90% CO2 and after a fixed time measure the temperature of both surfaces to see if there is any difference?

Surely, if CO2 is this terrible menace we are told it is, then why can't we eliminate all the complexities and variables and just let the CO2 speak for itself with no uncertain ambiguity that anyone can see and relate to without all the complex graphs, charts and haughty mumbo-jumbo?

I agree ... theories have to be demonstrated, or they're useless ... this shouldn't be all that hard, but apparently it is ... search as I might, no one seems to have tried ...

All we're left with is science fiction mumbo-jumbo and naked ladies ...

Well, if they can demonstrate this "radiative forcing" with a few naked ladies, then I'm all in. The thing that puzzles me is that I'm not stupid, I understand how the atmosphere, oceans and land work together and I know it is complex, but if this is such a certain, looming problem, I also know from my problem-solving days that there has to be a fairly simple way you could DEMONSTRATE some of it to the community at large and get everyone on board and end the squabbling and doubts.

Set up two boxes with one the reference then ramp up the CO2 in the other and show the effect in a static environment. If 410ppm is bringing an end to the Earth then pure CO2 ought to make the box explode! Then from there it should be a simpler matter to extrapolate from the other variables to how this would act in the real world conditions that Joe Everyday could relate to!

The fact that no one is doing that gives me a real problem believing them---- if you can't even show the BASIC mechanism of how CO2 traps heat, converts it to IR warming a surface, then it really makes me wonder how you can be sure about anything else. I mean, what the climate alarmists are asking of the world is to stand on its head spitting nickels, make titanic sacrifices and gigantic changes so I suggest some of them here get busy and make a credible DEMONSTRATION of the problem that politicians and dumb slobs like me can see and relate to, otherwise, all they're ever going to be met with is that proverbial old woman in the Wendy's commercial where she asks:

WHERE'S THE BEEF.

 

[Captain Caveman]

The alarmists blame the industrial age in the 1800's, but apparently, I'm the target because I own a car.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Due to the lockdowns of 2020 and so much less human activity and travel, the world's CO2 level has dropped by 7% globally with the USA putting out 12% less with over 3 billion tons less CO2 going into the air and this trend will continue for some time.

If what all the global warming alarmists say is true about MMCC, then this should eventually show up in the data somehow and we should see some signs of less warming, more snow or something, for 2020 has been, in effect, given the world what the climate alarmists have been saying for years we needed to do to fix things!

If none of this results in any deviation in the data, it will be a pretty good indicator that our climate is not being significant impacted by man through his output of CO2.

Carbon dioxide emissions dropped by 7% in pandemic-stricken 2020, new study shows

It's the biggest drop ever, according to new preliminary figures.

www.cbsnews.com

This will fire back up now that their silly leftyflu has proved not to be the endoftheworld zombievirus they had hoped for.

 

[JustAGuy1]

If man-made emissions have precipitously dropped yet levels continue to rise then obviously the levels are not man made.

Math, not your strong point, clearly. You did read the "7% drop" part, right?

Again, stop bothering the grownups.

YOU are not a "grown up".

 

[ReinyDays]

Your first link in the way YOU present is incredibly dishonest, you present anomaly map (departure from base average), but you didn't show the actual current temperature at the same time, which is well below ZERO over the entire region!

I'm glad to see you've learned a little about "anomaly" ... after I had to kick your ass over that a few months ago ... you still don't have it right yet it appears ... Rigby5 and I were discussing anomalies, and his link was to the appropriate image from that site ... you see there's a difference between the two, which is good, now we need to work on which data set goes with which conversation ... we were discussing the fact that temperatures were 12º higher than average, whatever that average ... thus this is an anomaly data we're discussing ...

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 430385

Naked lady with her knees pulled up so we can't see her boobies ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, if they can demonstrate this "radiative forcing" with a few naked ladies, then I'm all in. The thing that puzzles me is that I'm not stupid, I understand how the atmosphere, oceans and land work together and I know it is complex, but if this is such a certain, looming problem, I also know from my problem-solving days that there has to be a fairly simple way you could DEMONSTRATE some of it to the community at large and get everyone on board and end the squabbling and doubts.

Set up two boxes with one the reference then ramp up the CO2 in the other and show the effect in a static environment. If 410ppm is bringing an end to the Earth then pure CO2 ought to make the box explode! Then from there it should be a simpler matter to extrapolate from the other variables to how this would act in the real world conditions that Joe Everyday could relate to!

The fact that no one is doing that gives me a real problem believing them---- if you can't even show the BASIC mechanism of how CO2 traps heat, converts it to IR warming a surface, then it really makes me wonder how you can be sure about anything else. I mean, what the climate alarmists are asking of the world is to stand on its head spitting nickels, make titanic sacrifices and gigantic changes so I suggest some of them here get busy and make a credible DEMONSTRATION of the problem that politicians and dumb slobs like me can see and relate to, otherwise, all they're ever going to be met with is that proverbial old woman in the Wendy's commercial where she asks:

WHERE'S THE BEEF.

View attachment 430393

I'd like to see something more simpler ... just shining a light on containers with the various gas ratios and measure the temperature ... to get a body of experimental data comparing only carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature ... that's the broken step in the math ... we all know how physicists feel about broken math ...

Climate Chnage Hysteria requires minute amounts of CO2 to be extremely reactive ... and this has not been demonstrated ... and for this we could easily confine our wavelength to 15µm ... according to AGW Theory, that should be proof positive ... so until then, it's all conjecture ...

Look ... it's them University of Maine weenies who post dirty pictures ... climate reorganizer my ass ... that's a porn site and you should be ashamed you're hauntin gth ep[lace ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your first link in the way YOU present is incredibly dishonest, you present anomaly map (departure from base average), but you didn't show the actual current temperature at the same time, which is well below ZERO over the entire region!

I'm glad to see you've learned a little about "anomaly" ... after I had to kick your ass over that a few months ago ... you still don't have it right yet it appears ... Rigby5 and I were discussing anomalies, and his link was to the appropriate image from that site ... you see there's a difference between the two, which is good, now we need to work on which data set goes with which conversation ... we were discussing the fact that temperatures were 12º higher than average, whatever that average ... thus this is an anomaly data we're discussing ...

Why the lie, I knew for a long time what anomaly is.

Old Rocks over and over post that anomaly chart for the arctic region, but doesn't say anything about the current temperature which is below freezing around 95% of the year. His propaganda style showed a lot of red in the north, but when showing the current temperature chart instead, most or all of the red vanishes, that is the dishonesty warmist/alarmist use many times. I notice YOU never notice the difference......

Without a measured temperature database, anomaly data can't exist, which is overrated/iverused when short temperature data bases are used. Satellite covers just 40 years, against a Holocene estimated to be around 11,500 old.

I would love to see what an anomaly looks like with 11,500 years of temperature data, oh wait it would be misleading because temperature CHANGE (oh that word!) is irregular and based on true climate change (ROMAN,MWP, LIA,MODERN) which means Anomaly doesn't teach us much of anything, it is a favorite warmist/alarmist method to make it seem bad!

Merriam Webster:

Anomaly

something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified : something

A running mean over a long period of time is a much better measure of temperature change, than the nebulous Anomaly (which depends on an arbitrarily chosen) baseline, which can create a misleading anomaly departure.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, if they can demonstrate this "radiative forcing" with a few naked ladies, then I'm all in. The thing that puzzles me is that I'm not stupid, I understand how the atmosphere, oceans and land work together and I know it is complex, but if this is such a certain, looming problem, I also know from my problem-solving days that there has to be a fairly simple way you could DEMONSTRATE some of it to the community at large and get everyone on board and end the squabbling and doubts.

Set up two boxes with one the reference then ramp up the CO2 in the other and show the effect in a static environment. If 410ppm is bringing an end to the Earth then pure CO2 ought to make the box explode! Then from there it should be a simpler matter to extrapolate from the other variables to how this would act in the real world conditions that Joe Everyday could relate to!

The fact that no one is doing that gives me a real problem believing them---- if you can't even show the BASIC mechanism of how CO2 traps heat, converts it to IR warming a surface, then it really makes me wonder how you can be sure about anything else. I mean, what the climate alarmists are asking of the world is to stand on its head spitting nickels, make titanic sacrifices and gigantic changes so I suggest some of them here get busy and make a credible DEMONSTRATION of the problem that politicians and dumb slobs like me can see and relate to, otherwise, all they're ever going to be met with is that proverbial old woman in the Wendy's commercial where she asks:

WHERE'S THE BEEF.

View attachment 430393

I'd like to see something more simpler ... just shining a light on containers with the various gas ratios and measure the temperature ... to get a body of experimental data comparing only carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature ... that's the broken step in the math ... we all know how physicists feel about broken math ...

Climate Chnage Hysteria requires minute amounts of CO2 to be extremely reactive ... and this has not been demonstrated ... and for this we could easily confine our wavelength to 15µm ... according to AGW Theory, that should be proof positive ... so until then, it's all conjecture ...

Look ... it's them University of Maine weenies who post dirty pictures ... climate reorganizer my ass ... that's a porn site and you should be ashamed you're hauntin gth ep[lace ...

Variation of a theme but either way works. I was just going to keep adding incrementally more CO2 to the box and keep measuring it so that there would be ONE closed system like the Earth gathering more CO2 over time like the Earth and use full spectrum sunlight so as to not add any variables to give anyone room to whine or complain or excuses if the results don't show what they want and expect.

The fact that no one has done this to PROVE global warming simply stuns me. Where is their regard for the planet?

Are people so addicted to their computers that they have forgotten how to do a simple physical experiment?

 

[ReinyDays]

Variation of a theme but either way works. I was just going to keep adding incrementally more CO2 to the box and keep measuring it so that there would be ONE closed system like the Earth gathering more CO2 over time like the Earth and use full spectrum sunlight so as to not add any variables to give anyone room to whine or complain or excuses if the results don't show what they want and expect.

The fact that no one has done this to PROVE global warming simply stuns me. Where is their regard for the planet?

Are people so addicted to their computers that they have forgotten how to do a simple physical experiment?

Climatologists aren't the smartest people in the world ... as long as they get their "C's" in physics and math ... they have no further use of rigidity ... "hypercanes and hockey sticks" ... no better than astrologers or alchemists ...

 

[mamooth]

I'd like to see something more simpler ... just shining a light on containers with the various gas ratios and measure the temperature

Done by Mybusters. Naturally, since it did exactly what they asked for, all deniers declared it didn't count for ... reasons. Those reasons being they lacked the guts and honesty to admit they were wrong.

... to get a body of experimental data comparing only carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature ...

The HITRAN database lists 77 papers that define the IR spectral absorption characteristics of CO2.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

 

[mamooth]

Climatologists aren't the smartest people in the world ... as long as they get their "C's" in physics and math ...

The fact that you can't distinguish climate scientists from "climatologists" would indiciate that your IQ is much lower than the even the C-average "climatologists". After all, you literally can't distinguish a public relations major from postdoctorate level study and science.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'd like to see something more simpler ... just shining a light on containers with the various gas ratios and measure the temperature

Done by Mybusters. Naturally, since it did exactly what they asked for, all deniers declared it didn't count for ... reasons. Those reasons being they lacked the guts and honesty to admit they were wrong.

... to get a body of experimental data comparing only carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature ...

The HITRAN database lists 77 papers that define the IR spectral absorption characteristics of CO2.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

The video is melting ice ... 500 J/g ... temperature wouldn't be functional with radiation in this set-up ... oh, I'm sorry, they're measuring lux, not watts ... morons ... they're pushing the light through the control gas ... that's insane ...

I agree this show the quality of CO2 to increase temperatures ... and there's far better ways to show this using pop bottles and dry ice ... that's not our argument ... how much does CO2 increase temperature? ... what's the mathematical relationship between concentration and temperature? ... using ice in this set-up is foolishness, get rid of it, have a pan of water in the bottom of each box and wait until the sample gas is saturated ... eliminate these change-of-state complications ... letting actors do science is a bad idea ... but if scientists won't do this type of experimenting, I guess we have to let actors do it for us ... does anyone know of a link to the output spectrum of the lighting equipment they use in TV studios? ... without that, you got nothing ...

Oh .. right ... mamooth ... "It has to be true or they can't put it on TV" ...

HITRAN lists the wavelengths that the various gases are reactive to ... but not how much in different combinations ... if you'd read some of those 77 scientific papers, you would have known that ...

Melting ice ... that's fucking rich ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Climatologists aren't the smartest people in the world ... as long as they get their "C's" in physics and math ...

The fact that you can't distinguish climate scientists from "climatologists" would indiciate that your IQ is much lower than the even the C-average "climatologists". After all, you literally can't distinguish a public relations major from postdoctorate level study and science.

Climate science is taught in vocational schools and community colleges and is part of the requirements to get an Environmental Science certificate for the various jobs that require this certificate ... mastery of algebra is essential ...

Climatology is a degree program at a few universities with Atmospheric Science departments ... this curriculum starts in the junior year as the student needs to have completed two years of calculus, a year of physics, and a year of basic meteorology ... I've noted that UCLA's program has added some more calculus and a year of chemistry ... good of them ... not just that chemistry involves a more practical approach to thermodynamics, it's about the only class you'll get information on the physics of solutions ... both are critical to any understanding of the atmosphere ...

I know ... the perverts at U of Maine only offer climatology as a post graduate program ... part of their college of liberal arts and sciences ... ha ha ha ha ha ...

 

[abu afak]

I'd like to see something more simpler ... just shining a light on containers with the various gas ratios and measure the temperature ... to get a body of experimental data comparing only carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature ... that's the broken step in the math ... we all know how physicists feel about broken math ...

Climate Chnage Hysteria requires minute amounts of CO2 to be extremely reactive ... and this has not been demonstrated ... and for this we could easily confine our wavelength to 15µm ... according to AGW Theory, that should be proof positive ... so until then, it's all conjecture ...

Look ... it's them University of Maine weenies who post dirty pictures ... climate reorganizer my ass ... that's a porn site and you should be ashamed you're hauntin gth ep[lace ...

Duh
Have a party Dipshlt.

greenhouse gas experiments - Google Search

`

 

[ReinyDays]

I'd like to see something more simpler ... just shining a light on containers with the various gas ratios and measure the temperature ... to get a body of experimental data comparing only carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature ... that's the broken step in the math ... we all know how physicists feel about broken math ...

Climate Chnage Hysteria requires minute amounts of CO2 to be extremely reactive ... and this has not been demonstrated ... and for this we could easily confine our wavelength to 15µm ... according to AGW Theory, that should be proof positive ... so until then, it's all conjecture ...

Look ... it's them University of Maine weenies who post dirty pictures ... climate reorganizer my ass ... that's a porn site and you should be ashamed you're hauntin gth ep[lace ...

Duh
Have a party Dipshlt.

greenhouse gas experiments - Google Search

`

YouTube? ... okay boomer ...

 

[abu afak]

YouTube? ... okay boomer ...

YOU said YOU wanted "something Simpler."
"Shining a light in containers", "measuring temperatures."

I gave it to you.. right in the face. Hundreds of them.
You got PORKED.. again
(but do your job here.. Last-word away you prolifically REFUTED ASSHOLE)




`

 

[mamooth]

The video is melting ice ... 500 J/g ... temperature wouldn't be functional with radiation in this set-up ...

What does that even mean?

oh, I'm sorry, they're measuring lux, not watts ... morons ... they're pushing the light through the control gas ... that's insane ...

Why? Do you think it's insane that the sun pushes visible light through the atmosphere? The setup looks analagous to the earth. Visible light comes in, some of it is absorbed, re-emitted as IR, and the greenhouse gases block some of that IR, raising the temperature.

... what's the mathematical relationship between concentration and temperature?

There's no simple mathematical relationship. It's going to depend on the many variables in the setup. How much CO2? How much light? What spectrum? What distance does it shine through? What is the mass of the setup? What's it made of? How is it insulated? What's the starting temperature? What's the outside temperature? Is there room for convection? And so on. If you know all that, you can use it along with the IR absorption characteristics of the gases to run a model showing how much the temperature will warm up.

does anyone know of a link to the output spectrum of the lighting equipment they use in TV studios? ... without that, you got nothing ...

The exact output spectrum doesn't matter for the purpose of simply demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The only variable is the CO2. If the chamber with more CO2 melts faster, it means the CO2 retained more heat.

HITRAN lists the wavelengths that the various gases are reactive to ... but not how much in different combinations ...

No, that's exactly what it shows. Why do you think otherwise?

Melting ice ... that's fucking rich ...

Yet you can't come up with any sensibnle reason why it was bad for what it was attempting to illustrate. I can tell you don't have any background in physics, because you're awful at understanding experiment design.

 

[mamooth]

Climate science is taught in vocational schools and community colleges...

Climatology is a degree program at a few universities with Atmospheric Science departments ...

And neither one of them makes somebody a climate scientist. That basically requires a Ph.D in atmospheric phsyics, followed by years of postdoc work in the field.

 

[ReinyDays]

The video is melting ice ... 500 J/g ... temperature wouldn't be functional with radiation in this set-up ...

What does that even mean?

You don't know? ... that's funny ... take a class in chemistry, they explain this really well ...

... what's the mathematical relationship between concentration and temperature?

There's no simple mathematical relationship. It's going to depend on the many variables in the setup. How much CO2? How much light? What spectrum? What distance does it shine through? What is the mass of the setup? What's it made of? How is it insulated? What's the starting temperature? What's the outside temperature? Is there room for convection? And so on. If you know all that, you can use it along with the IR absorption characteristics of the gases to run a model showing how much the temperature will warm up.

Only concentration is a variable, these other factors are kept constant as we run through the numbers ... 180 ppm, 185 ppm, 190 ppm, etc etc etc ... as you will learn if you ever take chemistry ...