DIYbanter - View Single Post

[email protected]

(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
(M.A. Stewart) writes:

) writes:
"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not
determined by majority vote. The climate researchers use
scientific methods and thereby claim their endeavors are science.

As opposed to folks who will go on insisting the earth is flat based
on their political or religious beliefs. I think I'll give the edge
to the scientists in the credibility dept. Which isn't to say
they're never wrong, but compared to the corporate whores and
religious whackos, the scientific community is just more believable.

You misunderstand. Just using parts of the scientific method does
not make the endeavor science.

For example, a significant part of the scientific method is that
"researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and
design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions
which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to
guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

Show ONE repeatable experiment in the climate researcher's quiver.

Silly.

The warming effect of CO2 can be tested in experiments all day long.
Fill a tank with air add light, then vary amount of CO2, measure the
temperature.

The above line of reasoning is attempting to confuse the reader
because climate science makes predictions and the future only happens
once.

Even with that, there's a new result to measure every day and many
places to do the measurement.

Very silly.

Good point. Still, if you're talking about a tank resembling a standard
aquarium, and you want the gas mixture to approximate the earth's
molecules of CO2 into the tank?

Show your math.

For starters, a cubic meter of air contains 10**23 molecules.

Ya forgot the free atoms.

Free atoms? Definition:

(atomic physics) An atom, as in a gas, whose properties, such as
spectrum and magnetic moment, are not significantly affected by other
atoms, ions, or molecules nearby.

Not significant.

Does that include the 9300 ppm (0.93%) of Ar?

Yes, the Ar is insignificant, along with all the other inerts.

Actually, didn't expect any of the noble gases occurred with that
frequency. Ar is 3rd most common. Surprising...

So, instead of 10**23, we have 9.99**23?

--
Dan Espen