- Dec 18, 2013
- 137,417
- 28,324
- 2,180
Fuck 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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fuck you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......
Exactly.
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.
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.
It has? hmmm... let's see the experiment!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
there are hundreds
Out of every million molecules of atmosphere, 400 parts are CO2 in our latest worst case present day set of values.
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?
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?
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
Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.
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.
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
Why is it that everybody who is posting these kiddie experiments has no clue whatsoever how AGW is supposed to work?[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]
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]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]
In less than 10 minutes there won`t be any difference in T even with the foil cover and 700 ppm CO2.[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]
Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643
My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.
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!
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.
Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643
My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.