Northwest Passage

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Why is there no lab demonstration that shows the relative temperature change (Delta T) in degrees Centigrade for a volume of atmosphere containing - say up to but not exceeding - 4.00% CO2 relative to a volume of atmosphere containing 0.028% in CO2 in a controlled simulation?

Answers:


A: It is not feasible to replicate the required physical environment in a controlled laboratory setting.


B: I would bet it's been tested in a computer model or two.


All I got. I give up. What's the answer?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Answers:


A: It is not feasible to replicate the required physical environment in a controlled laboratory setting.


B: I would bet it's been tested in a computer model or two.


All I got. I give up. What's the answer?

A. Why isn't it feasible? Seems perfectly feasible to me. Don't talk about columns of atmosphere etc as an excuse. Mr Robert's ir absorption answer doesn't need that or anything else and he's convinced it explains everything (except the actual answer).

B. I could simulate fairies at the end of my garden in a computer model. Or two.

I'm asking the question, not answering it.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you've never heard the joke about the lost helicopter pilot and the Microsoft office tower you should Google it. Because you've just mimicked the punchline.

Now, back to the original request. Let me reword what I have asked slightly differently so perhaps this time you will understand it with clarity, because you just keep parroting on with the same IR absorption mumbo-jumbo as if the more times you repeat it the more it answers the same question.

Why is there no lab demonstration that shows the relative temperature change (Delta T) in degrees Centigrade for a volume of atmosphere containing - say up to but not exceeding - 4.00% CO2 relative to a volume of atmosphere containing 0.028% in CO2 in a controlled simulation?

Skeptical Science - which appears to be your primary reference in these matters - mentions a value, from memory, of 32 w/m energy absorption with a Delta T sans water vapour of 1 degree to ~0.04%(?) from, I assume, 0.028%. So surely there must be a demonstration in controlled conditions that provides evidence of this? If not why not? As I have said on previous occasions: To show that such a demonstration exists would almost certainly quash most all doubt about the level of the effect on atmospheric temperature that CO2 actually has. I'd also go as far to say that if no such practical demonstrations exist that can show comparable levels of Delta T then this casts a bit of a shadow over the theory of AGW.

To reiterate. We don't need a lesson on carbon dioxide's absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation, we simply need to know if a demonstration exists that can provide a quantifiable value of the temperature delta that will occur in the concentration of ranges described above.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I never had any illusion about being able to convince you, but I do hope others who read these posts might get something from it.

I wonder, when you cross a bridge or go in a tall building do you request to see an actual demonstration of the structure strength or do you trust the calculations that show it is sound? What scientific calculations do you have faith in?? Many are built on creating a theory which is then validated by experiment and those results are extended to other things which are not so easily tested in lab (like the full scale load testing of a bridge).

Finally even if some lab did actually manage to perform your experiment, it would hardly convince you of the overall theory, next it would be what about water vapor, what about areosols... The overall system is very complicated and would never lend itself to an actual simulation in a lab. That said it doesn't in any way diminish the reality for most of the scientific community.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

A. Why isn't it feasible?

Scale. Can't set up a suitable experiment in a used terrarium. It seems to require a planet.

B. I could simulate fairies at the end of my garden in a computer model. Or two.

There's some serious coin in doing that, if you're any good.

I'm asking the question, not answering it.

Sorry. Thought you might want a break from trolling playing inquisitor.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I never had any illusion about being able to convince you, but I do hope others who read these posts might get something from it.

I wonder, when you cross a bridge or go in a tall building do you request to see an actual demonstration of the structure strength or do you trust the calculations that show it is sound? What scientific calculations do you have faith in?? Many are built on creating a theory which is then validated by experiment and those results are extended to other things which are not so easily tested in lab (like the full scale load testing of a bridge).

Finally even if some lab did actually manage to perform your experiment, it would hardly convince you of the overall theory, next it would be what about water vapor, what about areosols... The overall system is very complicated and would never lend itself to an actual simulation in a lab. That said it doesn't in any way diminish the reality for most of the scientific community.

Yes, you had no illusion you'd convince me because deep down you know the reason why you cannot answer such a simple question.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Scale. Can't set up a suitable experiment in a used terrarium. It seems to require a planet.

<typical waffle>
...
</typical waffle>

If a certain element of the community wants to spend trillions of dollars and change human civilisation en-masse to solve what they claim is the casue of the problem (excessive CO2 emissions), then they'd better be prepared to build something bigger than a terrarium to practically demonstrate and provide evidence of the alleged problem.


Be that as it may, if you cant explain why we "need a planet" to test the delta T of two CO2 set points then you're just talking out of your behind.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes, you had no illusion you'd convince me because deep down you know the reason why you cannot answer such a simple question.

Oh c'mon. Tell us.

If a certain element of the community wants to spend trillions of dollars and change human civilisation en-masse to solve what they claim is the casue of the problem (excessive CO2 emissions), then they'd better be prepared to build something bigger than a terrarium to practically demonstrate and provide evidence of the alleged problem.

Seriously, you don't think they've proven this already?

Be that as it may, if you cant explain why we "need a planet" to test the delta T of two CO2 set points then you're just talking out of your behind.

Again - you don't think this has already been established in some fashion? Really?



Why?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh c'mon. Tell us.



Seriously, you don't think they've proven this already?




Again - you don't think this has already been established in some fashion? Really?



Why?

if you know that it has been done then please show where and link to the actual study.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh c'mon. Tell us.

<irrelevant picture of "The Scream" removed>

Seriously, you don't think they've proven this already?




Again - you don't think this has already been established in some fashion? Really?



Why?

<sarcasm>

Yeah. That's why I'm asking a question directly addressing this issue that no one seems to be able to answer.

</sarcasm>

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm very comfortable in understanding that people who carry around lists, stacks of books of the same title, and relentless behaviors about an agenda are at least plainly myopic. Very comfortable in understanding that this is how they are wired and that it's rather pointless to attempt to convince them otherwise because...of how they're wired. This book explains the wiring.

What's fascinating, to me at least, is that you can interview a "comet is coming" person at length, interview a "global warming will end us all" person at length, interview a "need to wash my hands constantly" person at length, interview a "need to accept the prophet" person at length....you can record these interviews and watch them in succession. You see the same archetypical cognitive processes similar across the multiple existential fears, with routinely similar countermeasures. If you change the nouns...it's the same story.

Even more fascinating, and troubling (as described in the book above) is that you can show someone who is forever pre-occupied with the coming locust invasion (themselves carrying lists, stacks of articles, books, as so on on the subject of locusts)....you can show the locust people the comet/global warming/handwashing people videos...and the locust people will be able to recognize that those other folks share some nutty obsession problem. BUT invariably the locust people cannot, will not be able to develop insight to see that they too are doing the same thing.

I'm not a climate denier. Just that, I suspect, I have a stronger background in the sciences than you coupled with a more open conceptualization of threat prioritization...together with a relative lack of observation biasing. As a wise man once said, one's opinions are the most deceiving thing. Anyone who holds an specific opinion for any length of time...almost by definition...is deceiving himself (and/or he doesn't believe in thermodynamics, or a gazillion derivative phenomena).

Well, you certainly enjoy your psychologizing, but I'm not sure I could recommend you as the "go to" person for up-to-date scientific AGW information.

[SailOar]

Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

....A new analysis, published in the journal Science, found that the oceans are heating up 40 percent faster on average than a United Nations panel estimated five years ago. The researchers also concluded that ocean temperatures have broken records for several straight years.

“2018 is going to be the warmest year on record for the Earth’s oceans,” said Zeke Hausfather, an energy systems analyst at the independent climate research group Berkeley Earth and an author of the study. “As 2017 was the warmest year, and 2016 was the warmest year.”....

Absent global action to reduce carbon emissions, the authors said, the warming alone would cause sea levels to rise by about a foot by 2100, and the ice caps would contribute more. That could exacerbate damages from severe coastal flooding and storm surge.....

A fourth study reviewed by the researchers strengthened their conclusions. That study used a novel method to estimate ocean temperatures indirectly, and it also found that the world’s oceans were heating faster than the authors of the 2014 study did.....

The scientists who published the four studies were not trying to make their results align, Mr. Hausfather said. “The groups who were working on ocean heat observations, they’re not climate modelers,” he said. “They’re not particularly concerned with whether or not their observations agree or disagree with climate models.”

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

<sarcasm>

Yeah. That's why I'm asking a question directly addressing this issue that no one seems to be able to answer.

</sarcasm>

This ain't the JPL or NOAA. It's a bunch of bored sailors sniping at each other. I must have dozed off in uni when they were discussing practical large-scale thermodynamic experimental processes.


You have a lap on us in this area. Why don't you actually go looking for this? If such an experiment is feasible, yet no one has done it... well, you'd have something.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

and what is your opinion and synopsis of the attached linked article . In your own words

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This ain't the JPL or NOAA. It's a bunch of bored sailors sniping at each other. I must have dozed off in uni when they were discussing practical large-scale thermodynamic experimental processes.


You have a lap on us in this area. Why don't you actually go looking for this? If such an experiment is feasible, yet no one has done it... well, you'd have something.

I have and there doesn't seem to be anything. I suspect not through lack of trying; for what self respecting climate scientist would not like to produce this evidence? But rather because the actual delta T is insignificant. I suggest that if this is the case, the effect when scaled up to "planet size" is pretty much the same regardless of what other hobgoblins are deployed in theory and models to try to make it otherwise.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have and there doesn't seem to be anything. I suspect not through lack of trying; for what self respecting climate scientist would not like to produce this evidence? But rather because the actual delta T is insignificant. I suggest that if this is the case, the effect when scaled up to "planet size" is pretty much the same regardless of what other hobgoblins are deployed in theory and models to try to make it otherwise.

if they actually had that information available it would never see the light of day .
They couldn't try to scare people with the if we don't stop co2 it will kill everyone bit.

Just like all of the pre 1999 data it has either been deleted or altered to fit the narrative.

And yes I do have pre1999 temperature graphs to show but I will be accused of doctoring .
( if not me then someone else )

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have and there doesn't seem to be anything. I suspect not through lack of trying; for what self respecting climate scientist would not like to produce this evidence? But rather because the actual delta T is insignificant. I suggest that if this is the case, the effect when scaled up to "planet size" is pretty much the same regardless of what other hobgoblins are deployed in theory and models to try to make it otherwise.

Here's something within the grasp of most CFers.

A whack of other experiments of varying sophistication.

A computer simulation of faeries greenhouse effects

Seriously, I don't yet have a good understanding of the experiment that you are seeking, so I don't have much to search on. Would you please outline what you think is required to be demonstrated experimentally? What would success look like?