Two Theories

[bripat9643]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Who does the experiments is irrelevant. Don't confirm the fact that you're a moron.

I'm not the one spouting unsupportable nonsense, am I.

Yes you are.

 

[bripat9643]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Why don't you explain what he got wrong?

 

[Crick]

Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Why don't you explain what he got wrong?

It would be quicker to explain what he got right.

" "

This Einstein conversation is simply a way for the lot of you to run away from what has to be an extraordinarily embarrassing conversation about your reaction to a clear and simple experiment demonstrating precisely what you all said couldn't be demonstrated and which you have all fallen over each other dissembling, prevaricating, feigning blindness and just outright lying in a wasted attempt to convince yourselves and the world that we didn't read what we just read.

The greenhouse effect is real and it is precisely as effective as modern science says it is.

The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly be experiencing for the next several hundred more.

Humans are, by far, the primary source of that additional CO2.

The decision to deny those point - YOUR decision to deny those points can only be the result of ignorant prejudice.

Clear enough?

BTW, you might want to look up what Einstein thought of Schwarzchild's work.

And Einstein's discovery of relativity, both special and general, whether correct or not, did not make it accepted science. It became accepted science when it was ACCEPTED by the majority of the experts in the field.

Sometimes I wonder if any of you speak English.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know, sometimes you don't really need to do experiments. It is enough just to read that the AGW proponents agree that their climate models haven't produced a great deal of accuracy yet. But never fear. They will. At least they will if the government keeps funneling billions of dollars into their bank accounts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Uh huh. Can you point out the error of my ways? Consider it a "teaching moment"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Why don't you explain what he got wrong?

It would be quicker to explain what he got right.

" "

This Einstein conversation is simply a way for the lot of you to run away from what has to be an extraordinarily embarrassing conversation about your reaction to a clear and simple experiment demonstrating precisely what you all said couldn't be demonstrated and which you have all fallen over each other dissembling, prevaricating, feigning blindness and just outright lying in a wasted attempt to convince yourselves and the world that we didn't read what we just read.

The greenhouse effect is real and it is precisely as effective as modern science says it is.

The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly be experiencing for the next several hundred more.

Humans are, by far, the primary source of that additional CO2.

The decision to deny those point - YOUR decision to deny those points can only be the result of ignorant prejudice.

Clear enough?

BTW, you might want to look up what Einstein thought of Schwarzchild's work.

And Einstein's discovery of relativity, both special and general, whether correct or not, did not make it accepted science. It became accepted science when it was ACCEPTED by the majority of the experts in the field.

Sometimes I wonder if any of you speak English.

"The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly be experiencing for the next several hundred more."

That's your Theory! That's not a "Fact"

You've never shown us how this works in a laboratory setting, not even one time. For all the billions spend on "Climate research" there's not a single experiment you can show us that demonstrates a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2.

Why is that?

 

[freedombecki]

Seriously, in your own words, without getting to elaborate, can you describe how you believe the greenhouse effect works?

Why waste my time? The problem doesn't lie in the science and it doesn't lie in the explanations. It lies in you and your choices.

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Who does the experiments is irrelevant. Don't confirm the fact that you're a moron.

I'm not the one spouting unsupportable nonsense, am I.

You are when your answer to someone's request for supporting your case for greenhouse gas effect is "why waste my time."

 

[SSDD]

The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly be experiencing for the next several hundred more..

There is a glaring flaw in your reasoning and it renders your hypothesis failed.

While CO2 levels were 280ppm 150 years ago, they had only climbed to about 310 in 1960 and most of the 20th century warming occurred prior to 1940. So most of the warming in the past 150 years happened with an increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 310ppm. In 1998 they were about 360ppm and since 1998 they have increased to 400 (give or take) but no warming has occurred since they were 360...and again, most of the 20th century warming was prior to 1940 when CO2 levels were at 310ppm or below.

Those facts are enough to invalidate your CO2 hypothesis alone...never mind the near endless stream of other failures.

 

[jc456]

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

Why don't you explain what he got wrong?

It would be quicker to explain what he got right.

" "

This Einstein conversation is simply a way for the lot of you to run away from what has to be an extraordinarily embarrassing conversation about your reaction to a clear and simple experiment demonstrating precisely what you all said couldn't be demonstrated and which you have all fallen over each other dissembling, prevaricating, feigning blindness and just outright lying in a wasted attempt to convince yourselves and the world that we didn't read what we just read.

The greenhouse effect is real and it is precisely as effective as modern science says it is.

The increase from 280 to 400 ppm of CO2 levels in our atmosphere is the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years and which we'll almost undoubtedly be experiencing for the next several hundred more.

Humans are, by far, the primary source of that additional CO2.

The decision to deny those point - YOUR decision to deny those points can only be the result of ignorant prejudice.

Clear enough?

BTW, you might want to look up what Einstein thought of Schwarzchild's work.

And Einstein's discovery of relativity, both special and general, whether correct or not, did not make it accepted science. It became accepted science when it was ACCEPTED by the majority of the experts in the field.

Sometimes I wonder if any of you speak English.

Just so I have it right, during that 150 years, was there ice melting at the poles? Because if there was, then the loss of ice volume could be a valid reason why temperatures were warmer. I only point to this past winter in Chicago where the Great Lakes were covered in ice, and we were told by the Meterologists that we would have a cooler spring due to the volume of ice that needed to melt influencing temperatures in our area!!!!!!!! So less ice would mean it would be warmer. When I drink a glass of water with ice, as the ice melts in the glass, the water isn't as cold any longer. Meaning the water is warmer.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

SOMETIMES small amounts of things CAN have significant effects. But YOU folks have failed to demonstrate that the trace amounts of atmospheric CO2 is one of those things.

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.

Patently untrue. In fact, there is NO evidence to support the proposition that such re-emission is "only" back out into space.

I didn't REALLY ask for a generally ignorant child like manboob to simply re-state the unestablished (A)GW hypothesis.

 

[jc456]

You know, sometimes you don't really need to do experiments. It is enough just to read that the AGW proponents agree that their climate models haven't produced a great deal of accuracy yet. But never fear. They will. At least they will if the government keeps funneling billions of dollars into their bank accounts.

This is very true, yet those same proponents aren't willing to drive for new models, instead stay infatuated with them so that over time they can be right. Hence for me, the need for the experiment that will actually either, validate their assertions and hypothesis or for once demonstrate the fallacy of the models.

See we all have the actual temperatures from 1940 to 1970 where the temperatures actually went down in that 30 year cycle while CO2 was at 310 PPM . The scramble from the warmers is that other factors were involved. Ya think? And for me why banking only on CO2 as an only factor in temperatures is obsurd.

Oh and the last fifteen years haitus doesn't help them either as you so correctly pointed out.

 

[IanC]

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.

So my suspicion is that they've tried these tests and it fails their Theory, that's why they never ever show the results

 

[elektra]

CO2, the rant goes on, literally.

If CO2 is the problem why do AGW activists demand the increase in use of fossil fuels.

Why do AGW activists demand that Heavy Industry be expanded.

Why do AGW activists turn a blind eye and deny thier contribution to the rise of CO2.

Nothing in California has created as much CO2 as the construction of our largest structures, Solar Panels and Wind Turbine plants.

Largest in the World they brag.

 

[IanC]

Frank is certainly correct that no reasonable experiment has been forthcoming. With all the funding available for pro-AGW projects it seems likely that many efforts have already been made with little success.

It really shouldnt be that difficult to construct containers that let IR pass freely, quartz has been used in the past I believe. It should be easy to remove and replace specific volumes of gas to produce known concentrations of CO2. thermometers give constant readouts so the curves could be compared. five containers would be enough; 280,420,560,840,1120. run each container 3 times (or more) at each concentration and the 75 trials would give more than enough information to give a reasonable idea of how much warming was taking place and whether it was logarithmic. and whether CO2 helps or hinders cooling when the energy source is off.

what would it cost? a few hundred thousand? a mllion? it would certainly be a better use of money than 5.7 million to produce a video game to convince people that AGW is happening.

So my suspicion is that they've tried these tests and it fails their Theory, that's why they never ever show the results

that is my belief as well. failed experiments are supposed to be available as well but in climate science there is a bias "not to give fodder to the skeptics", so negative or equivical results get put in the round filing cabinet. the recent refusal to publish that Scandinavian's critique of climate sensitivities is a case in point.

 

[IanC]

CO2, the rant goes on, literally.

If CO2 is the problem why do AGW activists demand the increase in use of fossil fuels.

Why do AGW activists demand that Heavy Industry be expanded.

Why do AGW activists turn a blind eye and deny thier contribution to the rise of CO2.

Nothing in California has created as much CO2 as the construction of our largest structures, Solar Panels and Wind Turbine plants.

Largest in the World they brag.

lol. are you taking too much medication? or too little?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The AGW Faith crowd OUGHT to be DEMANDING nuclear power, to be consistent with their fear, loathing, disdain for (and did I mention fear of?) atmospheric CO2.

 

[Mustang]

Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.

Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.

The Theory states, well, no one is really sure what it states except any story on the Weather Channel is directly attributed to ManMade Global Climate Warming Disruption Change. I've inferred that the AGWCult Theory is: Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and the increase in temperature will disrupt the climate.

Easy enough to test the first part in a lab, but mysteriously, no such test exists even after spending billion of dollars in researching ManMade Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change! How is that possible?

Michio, where are you? Where are the AGW tests?

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that means is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

 

[jc456]

Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.

Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.

The Theory states, well, no one is really sure what it states except any story on the Weather Channel is directly attributed to ManMade Global Climate Warming Disruption Change. I've inferred that the AGWCult Theory is: Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and the increase in temperature will disrupt the climate.

Easy enough to test the first part in a lab, but mysteriously, no such test exists even after spending billion of dollars in researching ManMade Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change! How is that possible?

Michio, where are you? Where are the AGW tests?

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

Dude, as asked for more than 20 times on here, you have walked into a prove it scenario. If your claim is that CO2 is a causal influence, then our position is and has been show us the experiment that proves that. Why oh why if this is so simple is this the most difficult task on the planet at this time for you all? Just show us the support video that demonstrates what you just wrote and repeated. I will Repeat!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Einstein General Theory of Relativity published in 1916 postulated that gravity could bend light. At no point did he ever claim that "the science was settled" or that he had "Consensus", instead he let his theory be tested because that's what real scientist do.

Michio Kaku recently say that the standard for establishing a theory is so rigorous that if it failed a test on even a single data point, the theory would have to be discarded in favor of a new theory. So far, Relativity has passed every test. Now consider the Theory of AGW.

The Theory states, well, no one is really sure what it states except any story on the Weather Channel is directly attributed to ManMade Global Climate Warming Disruption Change. I've inferred that the AGWCult Theory is: Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and the increase in temperature will disrupt the climate.

Easy enough to test the first part in a lab, but mysteriously, no such test exists even after spending billion of dollars in researching ManMade Global Cooling Climate Warming Disruption Change! How is that possible?

Michio, where are you? Where are the AGW tests?

There's a fundamental flaw in YOUR theory.

Here it is: The Greenhouse Effect is a fact. What that mean is that the introduction of additional greenhouse gases into a planetary environment will (I repeat, WILL) ultimately lead to an increase in temperature as less solar radiation escapes back into space because it is absorbed/trapped within the planetary environment.

Don't confuse that scientific fact with the theory of anthropological climate change/global warming currently being debated.

"Because I say so" Does not make it a "Fact"

Get your lab coat on and run the experiment showing us how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature