Global Warming - Six Grave Scientific Errors and the history of an absurd idea

No I get it, he is old and more experienced so he doesn't know anything about science anymore. LOL

 

No, really, you can do better than that. Like, actually addressing the points I made. That makes it seem less like trolling and more like a valid response.

 

You have made only the points that the OP points out are flawed.

 

No, you're still not doing it right. For instance, I quoted two parts of Kear's pamphlet and explained how they're laughably wrong. You could try responding to that.

Or you could try responding to the part where I point out that Kear seems to think 60-year-old student research somehow trumps more recent and comprehensive studies.

Or you could try responding to the part where I point out that he was a bureaucrat, not an active scientist.

You can do it; I know you can.

 

Just proof, that's all I'm asking for. You know an experiment to show that doubling CO2 causes temperatures to rise! That's it. They say it does, so show me the experiment validating the point.

 

They're not just flawed. They are pure bull excrement. Their proof is in their lines climbing from the lower left chart to the upper right. Anyone can draw a lie.

 

I'm waiting on the evidence. You have an experiment showing your proof? Not models, not theories, validation of them. That's what I want to see. But I know you don't have one.

 

Why can't you show experimental proof? You have so much evidence to shout about, let's see the validation work. Come on now, I know you can't.

 

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

 

ahhh, nice try, but you see there is no controlled data to show what the part per million of CO2 was, also, curious as why the temperature continued up on the tank with no CO2. That seemed interesting. If a constant, there should be no increase of heat over time. It ought to stabilize and stay constance. Also, where is the data that shows any CO2 increase after the initial recorded reading? See, your agrument is that temperatures go up with the increase of CO2. Prove it. Still haven't. as the mythbusters say, that experiment is busted.

 

That's nonsensical. One jar contained regular air; the link tells you the concentration of the CO2 (0.037%). The other jar contained pure CO2 -- 100%, in other words.

In PPM, that would be 370 PPM for the air vs 1,000,000 PPM for the pure CO2.

Did you actually read the experiment? Because all your questions were answered there.

The temperature in both jars went up because both were being subjected to a heat source (heat lamps) to simulate the sun.

The point being that the jar with more CO2 warmed faster than the jar with less, thus demonstrating that CO2 traps heat.

The lamps are adding heat to the jars. The temperature within each jar will increase as long as heat is added. It will only start to stabilize once the temperature inside the jar matches the temperature of the heat lamps.

Read your first two sentences. In the second, you tell me I'm claiming that "temperatures go up with the increase of CO2", which is more or less correct. But your first sentence is asking me to prove that "CO2 goes up with an increase in temperature."

In other words, you just asked me to prove the opposite of what I claimed, and what the experiment shows.

What I gave you is an easily reproduced experiment demonstrating that CO2 traps heat, which is why scientists are concerned about it and other greenhouse gases. You asked for proof; I provided it. Hopefully you understood it.

 

No you're not. You have been shown the evidence, and you don't accept it. You're not waiting on the evidence. You're waiting on death.

Yup, and you've been shown that too. Which you also don't accept. Show me proof that you can think. Betcha can't.

 

So again, I know that heat lamps get hot, and I get that the person was using them as a simulation source. But my question is and has always been, show me that increasing CO2 in that same experiment after the initial temperature was recorded and that then, the temperature increases. See that means parts per million increased. Sorry, but I don't see that in the link.

Show me that increasing CO2 causes a rise in temperature.

I already know that CO2 will hold heat I expect to see a difference. Control the test, record the results after the two hours when the inside of the container matches the heat source, then go back and add CO2 and let's see what happens to the thermometer. It's simple, don't you think?

My god, that is the argument. It isn't that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

Evidence= validation of theory. Not shown ever, ever, ever..........

Show it, stop all of the nonsense and show that experiment. the one that shows increasing CO2 causes the temperature to increase. It's simple.

 

While that would not be an unreasonable experiment, you are moving the goalposts. You're basically saying, "instead of showing different jars with different levels of CO2, change the level of CO2 within a single jar."

This is problematic for two reasons:

1. It would muddy the experiment. The current experiment demonstrates that CO2 traps heat. You could even calculate its heat-trapping ability, if you wanted. In the experiment you are asking for, it would not be clear whether the temperature increased from the additional CO2 or simply from the continued addition of heat from the lamp.

2. It's unnecessary. The experiment proves that CO2 traps heat (the jar with more CO2 heated up faster than the jar with less). This proves that more CO2 means more trapped heat. We don't need to increase the CO2 within a single jar to prove that; it's already proven.

Once you agree that CO2 traps heat, you agree with the basic idea of global warming. Further, science is able to trace the *source* of many greenhouse gasses. Guess what? Nearly all the additional CO2 (and methane, and other greenhouse gasses) point to human activity as the source. Indeed, some of the most potent greenhouse gasses (like halocarbons) have NO NATURAL SOURCE.

If you would like a good primer on the science of climate change, and why we're confident of a human role, try this Scientific American article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-behind-climate-change/

 

You will never find the evidence you're looking for because you refuse to even look for it. If you don't accept the experiments that have been done over the last 150 years showing that CO2 absorbs heat, why don't you design your own? We look forward to seeing your results.

 

IMO, the experiment to prove the theory is what is needed. I don't know what the represetative parts per million in this experiment is. How much CO2 is 37% in a container? 100% CO2 and we'd be dead and no need to know the temperature. What I can't believe, is that the argument at hand is that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will be catastrophic and temperatures will soar. So you show an experiment that I feel is not controlled because I don't know what the CO2 represents as far as the argument nor does it help with predicting any sort of expectation built on the fear that an increase in CO2 will cause X.

The other odd piece of the experiment is the chart is backward to the experiment the right side of the chart represents the left side container. How odd. that too loses credibility with me. again, to prove the theory, represent the theory not something else and then state it represents the theory.

So again for me, take the jar with the 37% and 2 hours after the temperatures have been shown sustained, increase it to 40 % and give me what the readout. That is the argument. busted.
BTW, Do you know what the 37% was supposed to represent? And why the need to say total CO2 so there is zero oxygen.

Again, it's busted against the argument

 

Really, your claim your proof. Not mine to prove. So don't ask.

 

Dude, you seem to simply not understand the experiment. I can't help you with that.

It *was* a controlled experiment. The jars were closed; the concentration of CO2 in each was known. Subjected to the same amount of heat, the jar with more CO2 in it heated up faster, thus proving that CO2 traps heat.

Way to focus on a completely trivial irrelevancy.

Again, you seem to simply not understand some of the concepts here.

The experiment compared pure CO2 to air containing a fraction of CO2 so that there was a large difference in CO2 concentration, allowing us to clearly see the effect of the CO2 -- and be confident that what we were seeing was because of the CO2, not some other minor difference in the setups.

This is Science 101. The fact that you don't understand this is troubling, and makes continued discussion futile until you confront your lack of understanding head on.

 

So what? Again, it has no relevance to the argument. And it wasn't controlled. What was the temperatures in both containers without any CO2? that's called bench marking the experiment. Not done, how do I know that one light bulb isn't hotter than the other. busted. See you all don't even know the way to control an experiment. Silliness. So no proof yet. Still waiting.

 

You are not confronting your lack of understanding.

Yes it was. Your failure to understand that is your problem, not mine.

Room temperature.

Because the experimental outline clearly states, "two light bulbs of identical output."

You are being aggressively ignorant.

One of the great things about science is that it is reproducible. Not happy with the write-up I gave you? Great! It explains how the experiment was conducted; you can copy the set up, control all variables to your satisfaction, and see if you get different results.

Or you can set up a *different* experiment entirely to your own liking, and report the results.

But what you're doing -- making thinly-veiled accusations that the experiment I linked to is somehow shoddy or dishonest -- is just lame.

 

Well then you sir have never done experiments. Because you cannot just say two identical output, you show the output next to each other after a controlled time when the temperature is read consecutively the same for some period of time. Sorry it is how most intelligent science is done.

If what you say is true, then where are all of the experiments at? This one is a hack job if I ever saw one. You take it great, not me. And no, I'm not responsible to prove otherwise, you make a claim back the claim. Using a controlled environment. still busted.

Again, go look at the way mythbusters did theirs in 2009, controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Again, they didn't take the extra step and increase the CO2 after they had their 4 hour mark. Too bad, they had it going right. I've written them to repeat and do that.

 

jc, you are making raytri, contrails and poor debater look like the poor debaters they are. They DO NOT have an answer. Even my own dumbass understands where you are going. Must be why neither have replied since mid-afternoon, yesterday.

 

Thanks. I have experience with testing for communication equipment in controlled labs. I know what is what to set up a test.

I get a kick out of the table showing the temperatures. The experiment is left CO2 and right air then they make a table and reverse it. How stupid is that. That alone tells me they didn't know what they were doing. It's a hoot. And like I said if it is so simple, then why the hell aren't there hundreds of example experiments over youtube or webex or whatever. IMO, they know they're wrong did the tests and set ah sh__it. And then agreed to bury it all to push the agenda.

So every light is the same heat? LOL Bench mark that temperature first. One other point, the hoods on the lamps didn't look the same either or they were not in the same position. Huh?

I liked your response, thanks again.

 

You have what 'experience?'

The GREENHOUSE EFFECT is well-known to occur, from accumulation, of atmospheric molecules, of three atoms or more, in addition, to the prevalent N2 and O2.

You spam rambles, as if you could argue the Earth is not a geoid, or at-risk behaviors don't pass HIV or cause cancer.

I don't miss the Obamanazis, yet, but hey . . .