Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, simple peer reviewed lab testing proving that man-made carbon emmisions are casuing and/or accelorating "global warming".
That's all I'm asking for, nothing more, nothing less.
I guess you're not able to pick up on subtleties so let me lay it out for you. In climate science and in many other sciences there is not, nor can there be a lab. To create a lab one would have to have a planet complete with sun and atmosphere that you could vary to check the results. Such an assertion is moronic.
The same limitation affects astrophysics, macroeconomics, and a host of other disciplines. Anybody with the most basic scientific background would never make such an ignorant statement once. You seem to think it's your magic "win the argument card". It isn't it just exposes you as totally uninformed.
I guess you're not able to pick up on subtleties so let me lay it out for you. In climate science and in many other sciences there is not, nor can there be a lab. To create a lab one would have to have a planet complete with sun and atmosphere that you could vary to check the results. Such an assertion is moronic.
The same limitation affects astrophysics, macroeconomics, and a host of other disciplines. Anybody with the most basic scientific background would never make such an ignorant statement once. You seem to think it's your magic "win the argument card". It isn't it just exposes you as totally uninformed.
Let me make it simple for you.
Such large projects as climate are already tested in labs, such as lightning and tornadoes.
Experiments in physics of all natures also occur in a lab including astrophysics, even the patern of impact for different types of meterorites.
"macroeconomics" doesn't utilize the scientific methods.
Tests can indeed be developed, which is part of the scientific method, for concerns as large as seeking a correlation between man-made carbon emission and some massive global catastrophy.
Such large projects as climate are already tested in labs, such as lightning and tornadoes.
Experiments in physics of all natures also occur in a lab including astrophysics, even the patern of impact for different types of meterorites. "m
acroeconomics" doesn't utilize the scientific methods.
Tests can indeed be developed, which is part of the scientific method, for concerns as large as seeking a correlation between man-made carbon emission and some massive global catastrophy.
Your rant
ant above is merely a cop-out.
There are no labs to test lightning or tornadoes. There are labs to test aspects of lightning especially the impact of high voltage electrical discharge on equipment, but it's far removed from an actual lighting stroke. As for a lab that creates a tornado, LOL what a funny joke. Fairly pathetic attempt. Want to try again or just give up?
Such large projects as climate are already tested in labs, such as lightning and tornadoes.
Experiments in physics of all natures also occur in a lab including astrophysics, even the patern of impact for different types of meterorites.
"macroeconomics" doesn't utilize the scientific methods.
Tests can indeed be developed, which is part of the scientific method, for concerns as large as seeking a correlation between man-made carbon emission and some massive global catastrophy.
Your rant above is merely a cop-out.
How about looking at the fossil record, if you are actually interested in true climate study. "climate" cannot be studied in the the lab. I think if you look at the fossil record objectively, you will change your mind.
a. fossilized tropical plants and animals in the arctic that post date continental drift.
b. coal deposits in arctic regions
c. striated soil and rock deposits showing cycles of "hot" and "cold" climates dating back to millions of years. The cylic nature is attributed to the cyclical changes in the eliptical orbit of the earth around the sun.
d. ice core evidence showing that CO2 rises as a RESULT, not a cause, of increased temperature
e. temperatures were higher than they are now prior to the "little ice age" from 1300 to 1850
You need to measure "climate" over tens of thousands of years. Looking at "climate change" over the course of even 100 years is like looking at book with your face one inch from the page. It is a little blurry.
There are no labs to test lightning or tornadoes. There are labs to test aspects of lightning especially the impact of high voltage electrical discharge on equipment, but it's far removed from an actual lighting stroke. As for a lab that creates a tornado, LOL what a funny joke. Fairly pathetic attempt. Want to try again or just give up?
Thanks for making my points. These ARE tested in the lab.
BTW, tornadoes...
Though meteorologists now know enough about tornadoes to predict with reasonable accuracy when they are likely to occur, they are powerless to prevent the deadly funnels from forming and cutting their swaths of destruction. Help may be on its way. A NASA scientist has conducted laboratory tests suggesting that tornadoes are electrically driven phenomena that can be dissipated simply by shorting them out.
How about looking at the fossil record, if you are actually interested in true climate study. "climate" cannot be studied in the the lab. I think if you look at the fossil record objectively, you will change your mind.
a. fossilized tropical plants and animals in the arctic that post date continental drift.
b. coal deposits in arctic regions
c. striated soil and rock deposits showing cycles of "hot" and "cold" climates dating back to millions of years. The cylic nature is attributed to the cyclical changes in the eliptical orbit of the earth around the sun.
d. ice core evidence showing that CO2 rises as a RESULT, not a cause, of increased temperature
e. temperatures were higher than they are now prior to the "little ice age" from 1300 to 1850
You need to measure "climate" over tens of thousands of years. Looking at "climate change" over the course of even 100 years is like looking at book with your face one inch from the page. It is a little blurry.
Not speaking of climate. I am looking for verified tests proving that man-made carbon emissions are creating/accelorating climate change, ie "global warming".
Anyone who thinks the climate doesn't change drastically over time has no business being on the internets.
However, there is little to no evidence, other than statistical "evidence" that appears to contradict itself and is open to much debate (and agenda driven "adjsutments").
Simple lab research for man-made "global warming" is all I'm asking for.
Not speaking of climate. I am looking for verified tests proving that man-made carbon emissions are creating/accelorating climate change, ie "global warming".
Anyone who thinks the climate doesn't change drastically over time has no business being on the internets.
However, there is little to no evidence, other than statistical "evidence" that appears to contradict itself and is open to much debate (and agenda driven "adjsutments").
Simple lab research for man-made "global warming" is all I'm asking for.
Again- it cannot be reproduced in the lab. The "lab" as you call it, is planet earth. The "data" is the fossil record and ice cores. That 'experiment" has already been done and all the "data" is there for you to look at, if only you would.
But in the new religion of climate change, the fossil record is an "inconvenient truth".
All this talk about science, but when the researchers names and the actual institutions that do the measurements are discussed with questions asked concerning them, all of a sudden there is a silence. I guess the only way to get commentary from those of the religion is to stay firmly entrenched in political commentary where they feel comfortable.
Again- it cannot be reproduced in the lab. The "lab" as you call it, is planet earth. The "data" is the fossil record and ice cores. That 'experiment" has already been done and all the "data" is there for you to look at, if only you would.
But in the new religion of climate change, the fossil record is an "inconvenient truth".
Another poster commented that tornadoes could not be researched in a lab setting. I replied with a link to a Times article where just that had occured.
There is no need to do it on a global scale, this is a strawman fallacy introduced to misdirect the simple request of peer reviewed testing and scientific method.
And there is no "inconvience". There is no one, to my knowledge, that denies that global climactic CHANGE occurs. What is being questioned is whether WE are the driving force behind ANY global climactic CHANGE during our existance on this earth.
If you are looking for recent peer-reviewed work that confirms that carbon emissions raise the earth's temperature (based on laboratory work and not based on models) then I have two examples for you:
1: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf (broken link)
2: http://www.amath.washington.edu/rese.../solar-jgr.pdf
The first is from 2006 and the second is from 2007.
Enjoy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
