Two Theories

[jc456]

**** you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......





Exactly.

Well, with no video it's hard to contest anything except your claim, that isn't proven.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

Easily done. If you put 280 ppm CO2 in a spectrophotometer, it will absorb IR radiation. If you put in 400 ppm, it will absorb more. It's simple logic. You're being disingenuous because you've been told this many times, but pretend to have never heard it before.

.04percent.

Out of every million molecules of atmosphere, 400 parts are CO2 in our latest worst case present day set of values.

Because CO2 absorbs the IR radiation, it is considered the most important greenhouse gas.

Of course, the same molecules of CO2 that absorb IR also re-emit IR.

So what is the net effect of this trace atmospheric element in terms of the hypothesized "greenhouse" effect?

And where are the tests that demonstrate this?

What are the other forces within the climate "system" that offset any (alleged) increase in temperature? For, after all, a "system" does often have a mechanical way of offsetting factors that throw it out of "balance." Have our greenhouse global climate change cooling heating gurus done ANY appreciable amount of work calculating what forces might serve to offset the increasing temperature?

Why haven't we seen a massive increase in global temperature in the past 19 or 20 years? All that added CO2 emission shit in the atmosphere would be expected to have noticeably pumped up the temperature over that period of time. Right?

Is something offsetting the expected increase? IF so, what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your problem is that you dont understand.

Its clear cut and dry.

Also there isnt one paper, only....theres a body of consensus and peer review and "cuz it feels right" doesnt pass muster unfortunately for your toddler brained conspiracy theory.

Remember when Einstein called relativity "settled science"?

You got played G.T.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The people running the scam must laugh themselves to sleep every night. They rebrand it weekly and the AGWCult never even asks why

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[bripat9643]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

It has? hmmm... let's see the experiment!

there are hundreds

Every example posted in this forum has turned out to be riddled with experimental error.

 

[mamooth]

Out of every million molecules of atmosphere, 400 parts are CO2 in our latest worst case present day set of values.

Fallacy, that a small amount can't have an effect.

Of course, the same molecules of CO2 that absorb IR also re-emit IR.

Fallacy, that the IR is reemitted only back out to space.

So what is the net effect of this trace atmospheric element in terms of the hypothesized "greenhouse" effect?

The same effect as putting a thicker blanket around yourself. You get warmer.

And where are the tests that demonstrate this?

Many examples have been posted here. Pretending the last century of physics doesn't exist only makes a person look delusional. Try not to emulate Frank/jc levels of cult brainwashing.

Have our greenhouse global climate change cooling heating gurus done ANY appreciable amount of work calculating what forces might serve to offset the increasing temperature?

Yes, they constantly look at all factors. You seem to be assuming everyone else is as intellectually blinded as your own side. That's not the case.

Why haven't we seen a massive increase in global temperature in the past 19 or 20 years?

But we have (though "massive" is your strawman, so we need not address it.) The models have been spot on correct, despite what lies you may have been told otherwise.

All that added CO2 emission shit in the atmosphere would be expected to have noticeably pumped up the temperature over that period of time. Right?

And it did. The cultists like to pretend the air temps haven't risen, and that the oceans don't exist at all. It's impossible to take anyone seriously if they spout nonsense of that magnitude.

 

[mamooth]

This stuff just cracks me up. the other day here in Chicago the temperature during the day was close to 88 degrees and when the sun went down it dropped to 50 degrees. Needed to turn the furnace back on. So technically I could have had the air on during the day and the furnace on at night. Yet all that CO2 up there is supposed to keep us warm when the sun goes down. Ain't working

Do you have any concept of how retarded your reasoning is?

You don't, of course, because you're an idiot. Look up Dunning-Kruger, you'll find your picture there as an example. That is, you're too stupid to be capable of understanding how stupid you are.

Rest assured that the normal people do understand how stupid you are. That accounts for the laughter that the whole planet is directing your way.

 

[mamooth]

Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.

But there was observable warming, so you just look like a dishonest kook for claiming otherwise.

Now, try to locate your balls and tell us what data would falsify your relig ... I mean, theory.

As it currently stands, your refusal to do so confirms what everyone already knows, that you're spouting cult pseudoscience. Science can be falsified. Denialism is a religion, hence there is literally nothing that can falsify it in the minds of those who believe in that religion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The models that show warming, cooling, floods, droughts, hurricanes, locusts, still air, etc support the AGWCult theory.

Science is skepticism and rigorous testing; AGWCult, not so much. It sounds more like religious fanaticism

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.

But there was observable warming, so you just look like a dishonest kook for claiming otherwise.

Now, try to locate your balls and tell us what data would falsify your relig ... I mean, theory.

As it currently stands, your refusal to do so confirms what everyone already knows, that you're spouting cult pseudoscience. Science can be falsified. Denialism is a religion, hence there is literally nothing that can falsify it in the minds of those who believe in that religion.

There was? Where? Can you point to one experiment that shows that??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's it called when you think somethings there, like an experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 increases temperature, but it's never there?

Delusional?

 

[polarbear]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

I doesn't have to be those exact numbers, dipstick

That bozo experiment does not have any numbers period !
So do tell us then what the temperature difference was after letting it cool for 5 minutes...how many deg C ?
And would there be a temperature difference in the rate of cooling if you do it without the aluminum foil ?
How would you know..fact is you don`t !..else you would not have picked that b.s as proof....because there is no temperature difference if you take the cover off !!!
This setup, the glass container covered with alu-foil is about as far as it can get from demonstrating how much heat can be radiated away at 15 µm, the wavelength where CO2 re-radiates, because 15 µm IR is not transmitted through glass.

[SIZE=+1]You will treat the air in the large glass vessel as a model of the atmosphere. The vessel will be covered and heated by the "sun" (the heat lamp) [/SIZE]

Why is it that everybody who is posting these kiddie experiments has no clue whatsoever how AGW is supposed to work?
But this one is even dumber than any of the other ones that have been posted.
Since you can`t specify a number for delta T after 5 minutes of cooling I`ll let you pick one and then I`ll let you do the math if there would be a temperature difference after 1 hour...I`ll even let you keep the tin foil on top of the jar for that.

[SIZE=+1]Interpretation of your results:

Using the outcome of your experiment, answer the following questions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Which stayed warm longer, the "normal" air, or the air with increased CO2? After cooling for five minutes, what was the difference in their temperatures?[/SIZE]

Aside from the 2 polar circles where on earth do you have a situation where the "heat lamp" is off for only 5 minutes ?

[SIZE=+1]The heat lamp is then turned off ("nighttime"), and the air allowed to cool naturally.
...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]After cooling for five minutes, what was the difference in their temperatures?[/SIZE] [/SIZE]

In less than 10 minutes there won`t be any difference in T even with the foil cover and 700 ppm CO2.
So do explain how this bozo experiment is supposed to be proof of CO2 AGW with 350 ppm CO2 if there isn`t any additional heat left the next day?

How would 300 to 400 ppm CO2 build up heat over decades?
And there is your problem...it has not !... except for a few minutes in covered glass jars with twice the CO2 concentrations as we do have.

 

[Crick]

Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643

My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643

My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.

Yeah, tell me more about your AGW Theory.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick: I can't put the AGW Theory into mere words! It's too, too, settled! We have Consensus, ya know! Not even Einstein had consensus! He had to do experiments! Bleh! Idiots!

 

[Crick]

My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation. I think no thread in years has so clearly shown the willful ignorance of the deniers here. Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts on their side and which has discarded honesty and integrity in order to try to hold an absolutely unsupportable position for reasons having NOTHING to do with the science or the facts, need do NOTHING more than read this thread. It could not be illustrated any more clearly. Again, GT, thank you.

 

[Crick]

Crick: I can't put the AGW Theory into mere words! It's too, too, settled! We have Consensus, ya know! Not even Einstein had consensus! He had to do experiments! Bleh! Idiots!

Tell us about the experiments Einstein conducted. Please.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation. I think no thread in years has so clearly shown the willful ignorance of the deniers here. Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts on their side and which has discarded honesty and integrity in order to try to hold an absolutely unsupportable position for reasons having NOTHING to do with the science or the facts, need do NOTHING more than read this thread. It could not be illustrated any more clearly. Again, GT, thank you.

LOL!!! Seriously!! LOL

We ask you for evidence, we get nothing.
We ask you to tell us your "theory" we get insults!
LOL

You're being played!

Any second now Ashton Kutcher jumps out and tell you the Warmers have been Punked! I mean didn't you realize it when they keep changing the name? LOL

 

[bripat9643]

Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643

My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.

That appears to be the list of people who have correctly identified you as a moron.