How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Dr. Imago]

Can you understand what they are saying?

Yes, but I don't think you can (my bolding for emphasis).

HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere.

What part of that don't you understand? Or, do you simply way overestimate the validity of computer modeling?

-Dr. Imago

 

[Round Robin]

I suggested this almost three months ago and I'll I've heard since is either the chirp of crickets or some lame excuse why it can't be done.

First off, get your facts straight. I didn't invent this experiment (that you are now derisively calling "Dr. Imago's Box"). It (or, a poorly representative "science on a budget" example of the same) is already being done and taught as "proof of principle" in high school science classes. If it's good enough for highschoolers, then why not real scientists. Right now, I really wonder what the take-home message those kids are getting... that maybe someday we're going to be living in a nearly 100% CO2 atmosphere?

With due respect, Dr. Imago, are you suggesting that a high-school level experiment be performed to confirm a mechanism that has been well understood, studied, observed, calculated, and explained for over 100 years?

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, but I don't think you can (my bolding for emphasis).



What part of that don't you understand? Or, do you simply way overestimate the validity of computer modeling?

-Dr. Imago

You either don't, won't are can't understand basic English. They aren't going to test for every combination of pressure, temperature, depth, and the other parameters that are available. It is simply impossible to do so. What they have done is extensive measurements, and interpolated the values in between.

Read their reports, it's all based on measurements.

 

[Dr. Imago]

With due respect, Dr. Imago, are you suggesting that a high-school level experiment be performed to confirm a mechanism that has been well understood, studied, observed, calculated, and explained for over 100 years?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

-Dr. Imago

 

[TrueSceptic]

With due respect, Dr. Imago, are you suggesting that a high-school level experiment be performed to confirm a mechanism that has been well understood, studied, observed, calculated, and explained for over 100 years?

This is exactly the sort of idiocy that GWS display with distressing regularity.

What's really funny, of course, is that they simply don't agree among themselves, and somehow don't notice (or care?) that they not only don't agree but their beliefs are actually contradictory.

Dr Imago doubts the CO2 greenhouse effect exists at all. Mhaze accepts it (well he did last July). Strange, is it not, that neither questions the other on this?

 

[Dr. Imago]

You either don't, won't are can't understand basic English.

Apparently neither can you. Again...

The parameters in HITRAN are sometimes direct observations, but often calculated.

Exactly what part of that don't you understand?

-Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

Well, you apparently ignored my reply to Round Robin, and I'm going to take the second part of your post first...

Dr Imago doubts the CO2 greenhouse effect exists at all. Mhaze accepts it (well he did last July). Strange, is it not, that neither questions the other on this?

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't "doubt" anything. What I want is proof. Until I see that proof - definitively - my mind is not made up. Is that not the definition of a skeptic?

And, this...

What's really funny, of course, is that they simply don't agree among themselves, and somehow don't notice (or care?) that they not only don't agree but their beliefs are actually contradictory.

First off, don't conjoin our arguments. It would be just as morally bankrupt for me to say that all AGW believers should demonstrate violent tendencies, like Schneibster, and would like to see any debate completely obliterated, using whatever means necessary including killing "dissenters" - or your arguments are invalid. Your point is, above all, irrelevant. MHaze and I are not the same person.

Second of all, you are making a broad accusation that anything he has said or I have said is "contradictory" (as demonstrated above in the first part of this reply). If you care to search either of our posts, I'd be delighted for you to specifically point this out.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

Now, class, put these two concepts together...

HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere.

The parameters in HITRAN are sometimes direct observations, but often calculated.

Yes, HITRAN apparently is the be-all, end-all to this argument. You are at least two degrees away from the real truth here. "Predictions" and "simulations" based largely on "calculated" parameters. Give me a break.

-Dr. Imago

 

[CapelDodger]

I never said it has to reproduce atmospheric conditions.

Yes you did. Go back to the source (you're it, after all). I didn't create Dr Imago's Box out of nothing.

 

[Round Robin]

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

-Dr. Imago

Well, I performed spectroscopy experiments in high-school physics in the mid '80s, then again as a physics major in college. We calculated the energies of photons and studied how molecules absorb and re-emit photons of various energies. Lasers do this also, btw. I also studied absorption spectra as an astronomy minor, as a way of identifying the compounds in nebulae and gas clouds.

Basically, I was fairly well aware of this mechanism 20 years ago, when it was well understood for over 80 years. Then, none of my physics or astronomy professors suggested that this was all bogus because it might lead some environmentalists to make alarmist claims about AGW... it was just a handful of experiments intended to demonstrate (not prove) well understood phenomena.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Yes you did. Go back to the source (you're it, after all). I didn't create Dr Imago's Box out of nothing.

Alright, pedant, here's what I want. I hope this clarifies it for you. This is my definitive statement on the subject.

The conditions inside the vessel should be controlled to be representative of the current gasses at the current concentrations found in the atmosphere. Every parameter, except for CO2, should be identical between the two vessels. The only variable is the concentration of CO2. You can vary this up or down and measure the direct effect of the changing concentrations.

I continue to be dumbfounded as to why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp. This type of experiment is done routinely in different contexts, and it forms the basis of our understanding of physical chemistry. This type of experiment would directly demonstrate - by isolating CO2 at the referenced concentrations - the direct effect in comparison with the "control" vessel of CO2's ability to absorb and re-radiate heat in the surrounding environment.

I've posted a simplistic version of this that is currently being done in high school experiments. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I'm genuinely curious as to why you continue to obfuscate and misdirect. Do you understand the experiment?

-Dr. Imago

 

[varwoche]

Don't get me wrong. Nothing (well...) would please me more than to see the Dr. Imago Box made a reality. What do you think it would cost?

My bad. The Box can't be costed without a spec. What say we spec it out?

 

[Dr. Imago]

Well, I performed spectroscopy experiments in high-school physics in the mid '80s, then again as a physics major in college. We calculated the energies of photons and studied how molecules absorb and re-emit photons of various energies. Lasers do this also, btw. I also studied absorption spectra as an astronomy minor, as a way of identifying the compounds in nebulae and gas clouds.

Basically, I was fairly well aware of this mechanism 20 years ago, when it was well understood for over 80 years. Then, none of my physics or astronomy professors suggested that this was all bogus because it might lead some environmentalists to make alarmist claims about AGW... it was just a handful of experiments intended to demonstrate (not prove) well understood phenomena.

Great. Show me the results of the experiment I suggest, then. Anywhere. I'll be delighted to review a link.

You know, I was a chemistry minor in undergrad, too. I took college level physics courses. Did similar experiments. Doesn't mean that I did this exact experiment. Doesn't mean the principle is proven just because I too stood on the shoulders of giants and read all those thick textbooks.

-Dr. Imago

 

[CapelDodger]

What they have done is extensive measurements, and interpolated the values in between.

(My emphasis)

That's the word I was searching for.

 

[CapelDodger]

Great. Show me the results of the experiment I suggest ...

Show me the box, then ask me again.

 

[CapelDodger]

inside the vessel[/i] should be controlled to be representative of the current gasses at the current concentrations found in the atmosphere.

Not representative of the 30 kilometres of atmosphere above our heads, then. That's a step back.

Every parameter, except for CO2, should be identical between the two vessels. The only variable is the concentration of CO2. You can vary this up or down and measure the direct effect of the changing concentrations.

The thing about the 30 klicks of atmosphere (which is where it's all going on) is that it varies in pressure. Which does have an influence. Your reference to "the atmosphere" is extremely simplistic.

I continue to be dumbfounded ,,,

I can believe that.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Show me the box, then ask me again.

Here's an experiment I think is more at your level.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

Show me the box, then ask me again.

Here is yet another version of the experiment using what-you-are-calling "Dr. Imago's Box" (for which I can take no credit), already done. But, as you can see the experimenter again used 100% CO2 instead of the concentrations purported to be present decades from now...

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

... now if we could only get someone to run this experiment at the concentrations in contention we could get an idea of the a real magnitude of effect in practice in lieu of a lot of theoretical speculation based on past observation and attempted correlation.

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

Now, class, put these two concepts together...






Yes, HITRAN apparently is the be-all, end-all to this argument. You are at least two degrees away from the real truth here. "Predictions" and "simulations" based largely on "calculated" parameters. Give me a break.

-Dr. Imago

Parameters. They take direct measurements. These measurements, of course cannot cover every combination of distance, pressure, temperature, etc. However, they can interpolate the parameters, based on the direct measurements. If you want the raw measurements that are the basis of the database, they will be in there. Read the documentation, they have spent many years measuring gases directly.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Here's yet another nice little gradeschool version of "Dr. Imago's Box"...

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/co2class.htm

The best line of this webpage is this:

... great caution must be exercised in the design and interpretation of scientific experiments.

Truer words were not spoken.

-Dr. Imago