When will Earth's energy imbalance, turns from warming to cooling?

[Lord of Planar]

I would point out that the interaction of CO2 with infrared radiation absolutely is laboratory tested.

Yes, it is. But in a limited way. What is the longest controlled setting it's tested in? The atmosphere is what? Almost 200 km in distance?

Big difference!

 

[Lord of Planar]

CO2 absorption spectrum, is not in question, it clearly has a dipole moment at 667 cm-1, the question,
is how does that absorption interact with the rest of the atmosphere to cause net positive forcing and feedback.

Yerp.

Not only the distance of the atmosphere, but the changing components of the atmosphere as well.

It is absolutely impossible to simulate this an a laboratory, but our AGW cult like believers have a religious like faith, that they are correct.

 

[longview]

So what are you demanding, a literal earth-sized laboratory or else you'll just declare nothing about climate science can ever possibly be proven?

Not at all, I am pointing out that there is no real empirical evidence in CO2's role in recent warming.
It is a likely suspect, but there are plenty of other possibilities, of combinations of possibilities.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what are you demanding, a literal earth-sized laboratory or else you'll just declare nothing about climate science can ever possibly be proven?

Yep.

Unless you can accomplish that, all you have is speculation.

 

[watsup]

Yerp.

Not only the distance of the atmosphere, but the changing components of the atmosphere as well.

It is absolutely impossible to simulate this an a laboratory, but our AGW cult like believers have a religious like faith, that they are correct.

Do you think that AGW should be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown to be correct? Longview stated awhile ago that HE does.

 

[ecofarm]

Global warming turns to global cooling when the North Atlantic Current (Gulf Stream to Med) flowing into the Deep Atlantic Current (down the middle of the Atlantic, southward), which feeds the Circumpolar Current (the only continuous current in the world) gets too warm and stops feeding the Circumpolar Current and the Circumpolar Current stops flowing. When it stops, we shift to cooling (an ice age).

 

[Deuce]

Yes, it is. But in a limited way. What is the longest controlled setting it's tested in? The atmosphere is what? Almost 200 km in distance?

Big difference!

So... are you asking for a 200km tall laboratory or else you are comfortable rejecting the entire concept?

 

[Deuce]

Yep.

Unless you can accomplish that, all you have is speculation.

And these people call us anti-science. ****ing absurd.

There's nothing worth talking to you about on climate change, you've just admitted to an impossible standard of proof. Bye.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So... are you asking for a 200km tall laboratory or else you are comfortable rejecting the entire concept?

No. I'm just pointing out that it is impossible to quantify the hypothesis, for that reason.

 

[longview]

Do you think that AGW should be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown to be correct? Longview stated awhile ago that HE does.

Wow, I said that, what was the post #?

 

[Deuce]

No. I'm just pointing out that it is impossible to quantify the hypothesis, for that reason.

Remember when you just had wild unsupported speculation that you demanded I disprove? Can you show me the laboratory results for it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Do you think that AGW should be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown to be correct? Longview stated awhile ago that HE does.

Wow, I said that, what was the post #?

Wow.

Watsup, you sure have an active imagination. Perhaps it's your confirmation bias leading yo to believ facts not in evidence?

Please do show us where Longview ever stated that.

 

[watsup]

The "who" is irrelevant, science only cares about if the data supports the hypotheses.
For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty.

And here it is! Where Longview actually mentions that the “attribution” of CO2 with respect to warming should be “laboratory tested” somehow.
I will ask again: do you really think that science such as evolution and the present global warming can be “laboratory tested”? Really?

 

[Lord of Planar]

And here it is! Where Longview actually mentions that the “attribution” of CO2 with respect to warming should be “laboratory tested” somehow.
I will ask again: do you really think that science such as evolution and the present global warming can be “laboratory tested”? Really?

If you acknowledge it cannot be properly tested, then why are you so certain?

 

[Deuce]

If you acknowledge it cannot be properly tested, then why are you so certain?

We reject your standard for "properly tested." You're anti-science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We reject your standard for "properly tested." You're anti-science.

LOL...

No, I understand what proper scientific testing is. You obviously do not.

 

[Deuce]

LOL...

No, I understand what proper scientific testing is. You obviously do not.

"It has to be done in a laboratory or it's just speculation" is objectively an anti-science and uninformed opinion

 

[longview]

And here it is! Where Longview actually mentions that the “attribution” of CO2 with respect to warming should be “laboratory tested” somehow.
I will ask again: do you really think that science such as evolution and the present global warming can be “laboratory tested”? Really?

Um! How do you get from what I said to what you said I said?
Here is what I said
" For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty."
and here is what you said I said,
"Do you think that AGW should be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown to be correct? Longview stated awhile ago that HE does."
For reference, my comment was that the actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty,
not that it needs to be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown correct.

 

[longview]

"It has to be done in a laboratory or it's just speculation" is objectively an anti-science and uninformed opinion

I think we can evaluate how the climate has responded to past warming perturbations,
as a sanity check of the predicted feedbacks.
It is as close to a laboratory test as we can get, but still leaves some unknown variables.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Um! How do you get from what I said to what you said I said?
Here is what I said
" For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty."
and here is what you said I said,
"Do you think that AGW should be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown to be correct? Longview stated awhile ago that HE does."
For reference, my comment was that the actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty,
not that it needs to be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown correct.

The indoctrinated have a hard time deciphering the facts.

 

[watsup]

If you acknowledge it cannot be properly tested, then why are you so certain?

How do you propose that we test AGW in the lab?

 

[watsup]

Um! How do you get from what I said to what you said I said?
Here is what I said
" For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty."
and here is what you said I said,
"Do you think that AGW should be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown to be correct? Longview stated awhile ago that HE does."
For reference, my comment was that the actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty,
not that it needs to be simulated in a laboratory in order to be shown correct.

To even mention lab testing with reference to AGW is totally ridiculous, and shows a lack of knowledge about how science is actually done.

 

[watsup]

The indoctrinated have a hard time deciphering the facts.

You are the reigning King of Psychological Projection.

 

[longview]

To even mention lab testing with reference to AGW is totally ridiculous, and shows a lack of knowledge about how science is actually done.

I only mentioned laboratory testing to show that the basis of AGW, is not itself tested.
But the day is still young, as we may yet be able to evaluate haw the climate actually has responded,
which is a type of laboratory test!

 

[iguanaman]

The "who" is irrelevant, science only cares about if the data supports the hypotheses.
For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty.

Are you now claiming that we cannot test the effects of CO2 on solar radiation in a laboratory?


1896
The greenhouse effect was discovered more than 100 years ago
In 1896, the world renowned Swedish scientist and Nobel Prize Winner Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), described how CO2 influences the climate.
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-years-earth-due-greenhouse-gas.html