Tyndall Lecture

[westwall]

That is the strength of science, evidence falsifies its mistaken theories and understandings, new theories and understandings that better match and explain all relevant evidences replace the old. Theories only become compelling when they are robust enough to survive review, testing and new evidences. Much of the understanding regarding atmospheric CO2's impact upon the earth's climate, predate the study you link, and it has only grown continuously more robust since.

Science is MEASURABLE. You guys do everything possible to avoid presenting anything that is measurable...that makes it pseudo-scientific monkey boy....

Your assertions are unsupported, incorrect and without standing. Your personal name-calling is simply rude and vulgar, and generally a poor reflection upon your upbringing.

Really? Then GIVE US SOMETHING MEASURABLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE HAND WAVING.

 

[Trakar]

Science is MEASURABLE. You guys do everything possible to avoid presenting anything that is measurable...that makes it pseudo-scientific monkey boy....

Your assertions are unsupported, incorrect and without standing. Your personal name-calling is simply rude and vulgar, and generally a poor reflection upon your upbringing.

Really? Then GIVE US SOMETHING MEASURABLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE HAND WAVING.

You are the one who is desperately waving your hands trying to dismiss the evidences that contradict your unsupported assertions. Typing in all caps does not enhance your argument nor support your assertions.

 

[SSDD]

Science is MEASURABLE. You guys do everything possible to avoid presenting anything that is measurable...that makes it pseudo-scientific monkey boy....

The more specific the questions become, the more pompous and further from the topic their answers become. They collapse under rigorous scientific questions. So long as they can make vague threats of doom and destruction they are content....but attempt to get specific and they start to babble. I think we might be on to the fool that will eventually bring down the hypothesis....specific and rigorous questioning highlights exactly how weak the hypothesis really is.

If they really had all the evidence the claim to have, they should be a lento make specific, rather than vague. cases with it. That is the nature of evidence isn't it? The more you have, the more specific you can get.

 

[westwall]

Your assertions are unsupported, incorrect and without standing. Your personal name-calling is simply rude and vulgar, and generally a poor reflection upon your upbringing.

Really? Then GIVE US SOMETHING MEASURABLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE HAND WAVING.

You are the one who is desperately waving your hands trying to dismiss the evidences that contradict your unsupported assertions. Typing in all caps does not enhance your argument nor support your assertions.

Evidence is MEASURABLE. Show us something, ANYTHING that is measurable. Go ahead I dare you!

 

[Trakar]

Science is MEASURABLE. You guys do everything possible to avoid presenting anything that is measurable...that makes it pseudo-scientific monkey boy....

Your assertions are unsupported, incorrect and without standing. Your personal name-calling is simply rude and vulgar, and generally a poor reflection upon your upbringing.

Really? Then GIVE US SOMETHING MEASURABLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE HAND WAVING.

As posted in the OP:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Your assertions are unsupported, incorrect and without standing. Your personal name-calling is simply rude and vulgar, and generally a poor reflection upon your upbringing.

Really? Then GIVE US SOMETHING MEASURABLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE HAND WAVING.

As posted in the OP:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

I listened to 17 minutes of that drivel and not one measurable point was mentioned. Please give me the section where they occur.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes posts from undegreed ex-TV weathermen and obese junkies on the radio, then tells us he is a Phd in Geology. The presenters at the AGU Conventions are the creme of the crop in current scientists. That is why we will never see you on that podium.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes posts from undegreed ex-TV weathermen and obese junkies on the radio, then tells us he is a Phd in Geology. The presenters at the AGU Conventions are the creme of the crop in current scientists. That is why we will never see you on that podium.

They certainly are. Some of them are good friends of mine. It's a shame that the fraudsters have taken over the leadership of the organisation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Walleyes posts from undegreed ex-TV weathermen and obese junkies on the radio, then tells us he is a Phd in Geology. The presenters at the AGU Conventions are the creme of the crop in current scientists. That is why we will never see you on that podium.

All that cream and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how increasing CO2 to 400 ppm causes "Global Warming" (aka: Climate change)

 

[Trakar]

Really? Then GIVE US SOMETHING MEASURABLE INSTEAD OF ALL THE HAND WAVING.

As posted in the OP:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

I listened to 17 minutes of that drivel and not one measurable point was mentioned. Please give me the section where they occur.

Measurable predictions and the resultant confirmations of those predictions are listed throughout the video. The context, details and explanations that accompany these predictions and the results are essential to understanding that data. Several data points are related and discussed in the first 15 minutes, but if you can't watch much more than a quarter hour of clear and interestingly presented contextual science without losing focus and not being able to follow along, then it is easy to understand why you are having a problem understanding science in general, yet alone the specific intricacies of climate science.

 

[Trakar]

Walleyes posts from undegreed ex-TV weathermen and obese junkies on the radio, then tells us he is a Phd in Geology. The presenters at the AGU Conventions are the creme of the crop in current scientists. That is why we will never see you on that podium.

All that cream and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how increasing CO2 to 400 ppm causes "Global Warming" (aka: Climate change)

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction" circa 1881 - JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" - Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science​

Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
http://new.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

"Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum"Authors:
Rubens, H.; Aschkinass, E.Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 8, p.176 (ApJ Homepage)Publication Date:
10/1898

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

"Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation" - Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240
Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation

While this handful of foundational experiments and the papers describing their findings and implications are only a few elementary examples of the thousands of such experiments performed in High Schools, Universities and laboratories around the planet each year, which support and confirm the connection between the atmospheric "insulating" effects of CO2 and GHGs in general there are many more such examples for any who are interested in the topic.

 

[Old Rocks]

And tomorrow, Frankie Boy will make exactly the same claim. But he finds a hollow moon believable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Walleyes posts from undegreed ex-TV weathermen and obese junkies on the radio, then tells us he is a Phd in Geology. The presenters at the AGU Conventions are the creme of the crop in current scientists. That is why we will never see you on that podium.

All that cream and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how increasing CO2 to 400 ppm causes "Global Warming" (aka: Climate change)

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction" circa 1881 - JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" - Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science​

Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
http://new.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

"Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum"Authors:
Rubens, H.; Aschkinass, E.Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 8, p.176 (ApJ Homepage)Publication Date:
10/1898

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

"Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation" - Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240
Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation

While this handful of foundational experiments and the papers describing their findings and implications are only a few elementary examples of the thousands of such experiments performed in High Schools, Universities and laboratories around the planet each year, which support and confirm the connection between the atmospheric "insulating" effects of CO2 and GHGs in general there are many more such examples for any who are interested in the topic.

Considering all that 19th science you depend on --- We'd (me, i ) wouldn't have much trouble with the 1degC that CO2 is contribute to the temp rise this century.. Arhennius had no accurate means of measuring or accounting for all of the absorbing gases in the CO2 bands, but we do.. And the AGW theory only smothers the air out of the environment topics because YOUR heroes are predicting up to a 6degC rise in Global Mean temp..

Now hysteria at 6degC is a lot easier to raise than what's SOLELY ATTRIBUTED to CO2 isn't it? And you depend on SIMPLIFYING Climate Science and your consensus to make it APPEAR to be 19th century physics.. But that's not the theory you and GoldiRocks are supporting here.

YOUR THEORY requires us to believe that the 1 or 2degC trigger caused by man-made CO2 will result in accelerated warming due to feedbacks and complex climate variables. Requires you to believe that the Earth climate is SOOOOOO fragile that a 1 or 2 degC rise FROM ANY SOURCE --- would lead to catastrophic amplification..

You must think everyone is stupid to toss out 19th physics and declare victory.. I know GoldiRocks has been doing that for years. Maybe -- one or both of you don't know your own theory...

I'll ACCEPT a 1.2 degC warming due to CO2 over this present century.. But that's NOT what the hysteria and huckersterism and fraud is about..

 

[Trakar]

Considering all that 19th science you depend on ---.

All science depends upon its foundational principles, observations and understandings. This is far from the totality of that science, but these early experiments are the best place for those that lack education, experience and understanding in science to gain a foundation of understanding of the topic. Likewise these are the places where amateurs and hobbyists can find experiments that they can relatively easily reproduce and confirm for themselves the foundations that have led to modern understandings. I can provide you with modern supporting experiments but not many people have access to the rather pricey hardware that would be required for them to personally repeat and confirm the results. I provided some examples of what was requested.

 

[SSDD]

Considering all that 19th science you depend on ---.

All science depends upon its foundational principles, observations and understandings. This is far from the totality of that science, but these early experiments are the best place for those that lack education, experience and understanding in science to gain a foundation of understanding of the topic. Likewise these are the places where amateurs and hobbyists can find experiments that they can relatively easily reproduce and confirm for themselves the foundations that have led to modern understandings. I can provide you with modern supporting experiments but not many people have access to the rather pricey hardware that would be required for them to personally repeat and confirm the results. I provided some examples of what was requested.

Those experiments only prove that CO2 absorbs and emits. They don't even begin to prove that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmospere. And don't forget Tyndall's comments regarding the absorption power of CO2.

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources.”

"carbonic acid gas is “extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate”.

 

[Old Rocks]

All that cream and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how increasing CO2 to 400 ppm causes "Global Warming" (aka: Climate change)

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction" circa 1881 - JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" - Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science​

Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
http://new.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

"Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum"Authors:
Rubens, H.; Aschkinass, E.Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 8, p.176 (ApJ Homepage)Publication Date:
10/1898

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

"Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation" - Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240
Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation

While this handful of foundational experiments and the papers describing their findings and implications are only a few elementary examples of the thousands of such experiments performed in High Schools, Universities and laboratories around the planet each year, which support and confirm the connection between the atmospheric "insulating" effects of CO2 and GHGs in general there are many more such examples for any who are interested in the topic.

Considering all that 19th science you depend on --- We'd (me, i ) wouldn't have much trouble with the 1degC that CO2 is contribute to the temp rise this century.. Arhennius had no accurate means of measuring or accounting for all of the absorbing gases in the CO2 bands, but we do.. And the AGW theory only smothers the air out of the environment topics because YOUR heroes are predicting up to a 6degC rise in Global Mean temp..

Now hysteria at 6degC is a lot easier to raise than what's SOLELY ATTRIBUTED to CO2 isn't it? And you depend on SIMPLIFYING Climate Science and your consensus to make it APPEAR to be 19th century physics.. But that's not the theory you and GoldiRocks are supporting here.

YOUR THEORY requires us to believe that the 1 or 2degC trigger caused by man-made CO2 will result in accelerated warming due to feedbacks and complex climate variables. Requires you to believe that the Earth climate is SOOOOOO fragile that a 1 or 2 degC rise FROM ANY SOURCE --- would lead to catastrophic amplification..

You must think everyone is stupid to toss out 19th physics and declare victory.. I know GoldiRocks has been doing that for years. Maybe -- one or both of you don't know your own theory...

I'll ACCEPT a 1.2 degC warming due to CO2 over this present century.. But that's NOT what the hysteria and huckersterism and fraud is about..

You, like everyone else, will accept whatever the temperature rises to.

And thus far, judging by the present trend in emissions of GHGs just from anthropogenic sources, the scientists best estimate is a lot more than 1.2 C. And all indictations are that they have a far firmer grasp on reality than do you.

 

[SSDD]

And thus far, judging by the present trend in emissions of GHGs just from anthropogenic sources, the scientists best estimate is a lot more than 1.2 C. And all indictations are that they have a far firmer grasp on reality than do you.

So tell us rocks...exactly how much warming do you think can be attributed to mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2? Surely you have an idea. How much exactly? Then explain how a gas that tyndall characterized as a "feeble" emitter manages to do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And tomorrow, Frankie Boy will make exactly the same claim. But he finds a hollow moon believable.

Only because there's far more scientific evidence favoring a hollow Moon than there is for the AGW hypothesis

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Walleyes posts from undegreed ex-TV weathermen and obese junkies on the radio, then tells us he is a Phd in Geology. The presenters at the AGU Conventions are the creme of the crop in current scientists. That is why we will never see you on that podium.

All that cream and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how increasing CO2 to 400 ppm causes "Global Warming" (aka: Climate change)

"The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction" circa 1881 - JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" - Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science​

Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
http://new.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

"Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum"Authors:
Rubens, H.; Aschkinass, E.Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 8, p.176 (ApJ Homepage)Publication Date:
10/1898

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

"Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation" - Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240
Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation

While this handful of foundational experiments and the papers describing their findings and implications are only a few elementary examples of the thousands of such experiments performed in High Schools, Universities and laboratories around the planet each year, which support and confirm the connection between the atmospheric "insulating" effects of CO2 and GHGs in general there are many more such examples for any who are interested in the topic.

All you have to do is take 2 tanks: one has 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen and the second has a tick under 20% oxygen and 400ppm CO2 and show us "Global Climate Warming Changes"