A real demonstration of warming from co2

[code1211]

How does that establish or even TEND to establish that an infinitesimal addition of CO2 to a planetary sized system has ANY measurable effect on global climate?

Does it establish that adding CO2 to an atmosphere COULD see temperatures rise?

Only in Kandor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll give you a better CO2 experiment. Go out into the Sonoran desert at night from 1945 to 2003 and measure the nighttime low.. No solar flux to contend with. But the drastic temperature reduction from radiative cooling is apparent to anyone who didn't bring a jacket. Be sure to control for the occasional build-up of water vapor. OBVIOUSLY, nighttime lows in the desert should be following the increase in CO2, yet both studies I've seen have found none.. What does that suggest as the more likely cause of the rise in annual mean global surface temperature?

Denier! Why do you hate science?

Oh, sorry, that's not science, that's a new game show "Wheel of Climate Change"

 

[code1211]

SCIENCE establishes that rising CO2 has a diminishing effect on rising temperatures. It further establishes that CO@ follows rising temps not precedes them.

Right - a point specifically rejected by the Royal Meteorological Society (UK) and world Met Society.

How do you explain that?

Are you saying that if there was absolutely no CO2 in the air and somehow 100 ppm were added it would increase the climate by only about 1 degree? That seems to have been the change in the last century with a 100 ppm increase.

I had heard, I think on this board that the first 20 ppm was enough to avoid snowball Earth.

Was that incorrect?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It tells us not one thing we didn't already know. CO2 COULD kill us all -- like if we eliminated all free oxygen and replaced it with an equal amount of CO2.

Of course, replacing O2 with Nitrogen gas could do the same thing.

The question is not "does CO2 have the theoretical potential to change planetary temperature?"

The question is, "is there any scientific evidence that the relatively miniscule additional amount of CO2 added by humankind to the planet's atmosphere has any actual impact on the planet's climate?"

As to THAT question, the OP's video lecture / demonstration offers not even one tiny bit of a hint.

Right - so the experiment has shown that CO2 CAN cause warming under certain circumstances.

Which is all it set out to prove.

The amount of CO2 released by human acitivity isn't minsicule by the way, though it may seem so when expressed as a % of the total. But it really is an enormous amount - check it out here:

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

The experiment involved probably at least 50 percent of the "atmosphere" as CO2. It is meaningless in the supposed claim that man is causing a massive rise in temps.

As for 2 groups of scientists saying established scientific fact is wrong, guess what? it is up to them to provide actual evidence they are right. Something they have either done and it does not support their claim so they never published it, or they simply refuse to do.

You remember peer review right? You brought it up. One can not simply deny that an established fact is wrong and then with no evidence to support the claim make new theories that hold any water. First they must discredit the supposed proven facts.

Further they must provide actual evidence their new theories are plausible and possible. Something they refuse to do.

Still waiting for an answer to THIS.

 

[code1211]

It tells us not one thing we didn't already know. CO2 COULD kill us all -- like if we eliminated all free oxygen and replaced it with an equal amount of CO2.

Of course, replacing O2 with Nitrogen gas could do the same thing.

The question is not "does CO2 have the theoretical potential to change planetary temperature?"

The question is, "is there any scientific evidence that the relatively miniscule additional amount of CO2 added by humankind to the planet's atmosphere has any actual impact on the planet's climate?"

As to THAT question, the OP's video lecture / demonstration offers not even one tiny bit of a hint.

Right - so the experiment has shown that CO2 CAN cause warming under certain circumstances.

Which is all it set out to prove.

The amount of CO2 released by human acitivity isn't minsicule by the way, though it may seem so when expressed as a % of the total. But it really is an enormous amount - check it out here:

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

It set out to DEMONSTRATE something to a class. It did not set out to prove that which was already known and well understood.

And it is fucking miniscule compared to the total amount of time it has taken humankind to generate the incredibly small increase and when compared to the massive volume of the atmosphere.

Denying that is just denying reality. And denying reality is an AGW Faither foundational belief.

I will admit that I didn't take the time to watch the demonstration. However, it seems like maybe the Green House Effect might be enhanced by conducting the experiment inside the aquarium which sounds like it's actually a little Greenhouse.

 

[code1211]

And it is fucking miniscule compared to the total amount of time it has taken humankind to generate the incredibly small increase and when compared to the massive volume of the atmosphere.

Denying that is just denying reality. And denying reality is an AGW Faither foundational belief.

Um....so you think the fact the humans were on earth for a couple of thousand years before they starting releasing collosal amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is somehow relevent?

Massive emmissions have only really been released for the past 50 years...about the same time as glaciers start to slip back and temperatures to rise, funnily enough.

The history of temperature rise over the last 2000 years:

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[code1211]

I'll give you a better CO2 experiment. Go out into the Sonoran desert at night from 1945 to 2003 and measure the nighttime low.. No solar flux to contend with. But the drastic temperature reduction from radiative cooling is apparent to anyone who didn't bring a jacket. Be sure to control for the occasional build-up of water vapor. OBVIOUSLY, nighttime lows in the desert should be following the increase in CO2, yet both studies I've seen have found none.. What does that suggest as the more likely cause of the rise in annual mean global surface temperature?

Do you have a link to this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Massive emmissions have only really been released for the past 50 years...about the same time as glaciers start to slip back

I live in Chicago and seem to remember hearing something about glaciers "slip(ping) back" long before we started to release CO2.

It was something about my area being under a mile of ice. Maybe you heard the same thing?

 

[code1211]

Massive emmissions have only really been released for the past 50 years...about the same time as glaciers start to slip back

I live in Chicago and seem to remember hearing something about glaciers "slip(ping) back" long before we started to release CO2.

It was something about my area being under a mile of ice. Maybe you heard the same thing?

It's funny, isn't it, that all climate science starts at about 1850. There is no acknowledgment of the various swings up and down in temperature, the devastation to society of the Little Ice Age, fact that we have just now warmed to a level at we we were about 5000 years ago and are still far cooler than we were 8000 years ago.

The only goal of climate science is to win a political argument.

 

[Liability]

Massive emmissions have only really been released for the past 50 years...about the same time as glaciers start to slip back

I live in Chicago and seem to remember hearing something about glaciers "slip(ping) back" long before we started to release CO2.

It was something about my area being under a mile of ice. Maybe you heard the same thing?

Yeah, same thing for the area around New York City. People with functioning eyeballs can still see physical evidence of it to this very day. But there WERE no people when it happened. Go figure.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll give you a better CO2 experiment. Go out into the Sonoran desert at night from 1945 to 2003 and measure the nighttime low.. No solar flux to contend with. But the drastic temperature reduction from radiative cooling is apparent to anyone who didn't bring a jacket. Be sure to control for the occasional build-up of water vapor. OBVIOUSLY, nighttime lows in the desert should be following the increase in CO2, yet both studies I've seen have found none.. What does that suggest as the more likely cause of the rise in annual mean global surface temperature?

Do you have a link to this?

Sorry about that.. Cable Modem problem. It's experiencing some "local warming" I think.

I had several, can only find this one -- and it's pretty readable. I LOVE the systematic set-up for this experiment because it concentrates on nighttime cooling (without solar irradiance) to verify the linkage between CO2 in atmos and surface temps.. There appears to be none at nighttime in the desert for the past 50 years or so.... HOWEVER -- as I expected -- a huge dependency between WATER Vapor and nighttime surface temps..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect  Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

 

[wirebender]

Well warmer boys and girls, you have a fine experiment there, but alas, it doesn't demonstrate what the fraud doing the experiment claimed. Either he is a deliberate fraud, or not qualified to be teaching physics.

That experiment provides a fine example of the heat of compression, not warming due to CO2. If he filled his tank with any gas that was heavier than air, the temperature in the tank would have gone up. The temperature increase was due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression. It is a very well known and understood property of gasses. The thermal energy of a gas increases when it is compressed, even just a little. When you confine a gas in an enclosed space, and heat it, you observe the heat of compression.

Had the "professor" put a tube in the tank with the CO2 through the lid so that the pressure could equalize, (since CO2 is heavier than air it wouldn't have escaped) or put a sensor in the tank to monitor the change in pressure to keep the experiment honest, the claim of warming due to CO2 would not have been made. CO2 does not, can not, and never has caused warming due to anything like the so called greenhouse effect.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well warmer boys and girls, you have a fine experiment there, but alas, it doesn't demonstrate what the fraud doing the experiment claimed. Either he is a deliberate fraud, or not qualified to be teaching physics.

That experiment provides a fine example of the heat of compression, not warming due to CO2. If he filled his tank with any gas that was heavier than air, the temperature in the tank would have gone up. The temperature increase was due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression. It is a very well known and understood property of gasses. The thermal energy of a gas increases when it is compressed, even just a little. When you confine a gas in an enclosed space, and heat it, you observe the heat of compression.

Had the "professor" put a tube in the tank with the CO2 through the lid so that the pressure could equalize, (since CO2 is heavier than air it wouldn't have escaped) or put a sensor in the tank to monitor the change in pressure to keep the experiment honest, the claim of warming due to CO2 would not have been made. CO2 does not, can not, and never has caused warming due to anything like the so called greenhouse effect.

Like I said, CO2 increase historically has FOLLOWED rising temperatures.And scientifically it is a fact that the effect CO2 has on increasing temperatures is small and is a diminishing factor as CO2 rises.

Of course the fraud in this thread claims that because two scientific bodies now say that is not true that it is now not true.

No evidence to back the new claim. no experiments to demonstrate the new claim. Just them saying it. It calls on peer review for climate warming caused by man but does no such thing on the claim a proven fact is supposedly not true any more.

Warmers have NEVER done an actual experiment to prove their point.They have used flawed computer models.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well warmer boys and girls, you have a fine experiment there, but alas, it doesn't demonstrate what the fraud doing the experiment claimed. Either he is a deliberate fraud, or not qualified to be teaching physics.

That experiment provides a fine example of the heat of compression, not warming due to CO2. If he filled his tank with any gas that was heavier than air, the temperature in the tank would have gone up. The temperature increase was due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression. It is a very well known and understood property of gasses. The thermal energy of a gas increases when it is compressed, even just a little. When you confine a gas in an enclosed space, and heat it, you observe the heat of compression.

Had the "professor" put a tube in the tank with the CO2 through the lid so that the pressure could equalize, (since CO2 is heavier than air it wouldn't have escaped) or put a sensor in the tank to monitor the change in pressure to keep the experiment honest, the claim of warming due to CO2 would not have been made. CO2 does not, can not, and never has caused warming due to anything like the so called greenhouse effect.

wirebender..........................


guy is the shit..............always prevails!!!



Dont you nutters ever tire of being publically humiliated or do you actually embrace looking like assholes??

 

[Old Rocks]

You be all funny and shit.

.

Yeah...that must be why there is not a single scientific body on earth who agree with you.

When you've stopped laughing - perhaps ask yourself why that is.

"No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faulty and dishonest "data?"

A political correctness that does not belong in "science" that makes it difficult for many to stand up and be honest?

Lack of interest?

Tell us, why do YOU reject all the scientists who HAVE called bullshit on the "consensus" bullshit?

Do YOU imagine that science is governed by a majority rule?

Why do you hate the scientific method?

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

Oh where is my little tin hat, tin hat, tin hat.

You people that believe that denial of reality affects that reality are a hoot.

 

[Liability]

Yeah...that must be why there is not a single scientific body on earth who agree with you.

When you've stopped laughing - perhaps ask yourself why that is.

"No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faulty and dishonest "data?"

A political correctness that does not belong in "science" that makes it difficult for many to stand up and be honest?

Lack of interest?

Tell us, why do YOU reject all the scientists who HAVE called bullshit on the "consensus" bullshit?

Do YOU imagine that science is governed by a majority rule?

Why do you hate the scientific method?

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

Oh where is my little tin hat, tin hat, tin hat.

You people that believe that denial of reality affects that reality are a hoot.

No, you dork.

I think that there are far too many valid scientists who dispute the crap you and the other AGW Faithers try to peddle.

You just don't care to include those who dispute the "Faith" in your collectivist thinking.

In the meantime, you remain totally unpersuasive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well warmer boys and girls, you have a fine experiment there, but alas, it doesn't demonstrate what the fraud doing the experiment claimed. Either he is a deliberate fraud, or not qualified to be teaching physics.

That experiment provides a fine example of the heat of compression, not warming due to CO2. If he filled his tank with any gas that was heavier than air, the temperature in the tank would have gone up. The temperature increase was due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression. It is a very well known and understood property of gasses. The thermal energy of a gas increases when it is compressed, even just a little. When you confine a gas in an enclosed space, and heat it, you observe the heat of compression.

Had the "professor" put a tube in the tank with the CO2 through the lid so that the pressure could equalize, (since CO2 is heavier than air it wouldn't have escaped) or put a sensor in the tank to monitor the change in pressure to keep the experiment honest, the claim of warming due to CO2 would not have been made. CO2 does not, can not, and never has caused warming due to anything like the so called greenhouse effect.

Like I said, CO2 increase historically has FOLLOWED rising temperatures.And scientifically it is a fact that the effect CO2 has on increasing temperatures is small and is a diminishing factor as CO2 rises.

Of course the fraud in this thread claims that because two scientific bodies now say that is not true that it is now not true.

No evidence to back the new claim. no experiments to demonstrate the new claim. Just them saying it. It calls on peer review for climate warming caused by man but does no such thing on the claim a proven fact is supposedly not true any more.

Warmers have NEVER done an actual experiment to prove their point.They have used flawed computer models.

Wrong. Only in this glacial period where the Milankovic Cycles control the warming and cooling has this been true. For several extinctions involving rapid increases in GHGs, the CO2 and CH4 rose rapidly, then the heat followed.

It is not 'two' scientific bodies. There is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, nor a single major University that state in their policy that AGW does not exist. Almost all state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

And the observation that something in the atmosphere was absorbing heat was done by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's, and the vital experiment that demonstrated what gases were GHGs, and how they did that, was done by Tyndall in 1859.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

Faulty and dishonest "data?"

A political correctness that does not belong in "science" that makes it difficult for many to stand up and be honest?

Lack of interest?

Tell us, why do YOU reject all the scientists who HAVE called bullshit on the "consensus" bullshit?

Do YOU imagine that science is governed by a majority rule?

Why do you hate the scientific method?

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

Oh where is my little tin hat, tin hat, tin hat.

You people that believe that denial of reality affects that reality are a hoot.

No, you dork.

I think that there are far too many valid scientists who dispute the crap you and the other AGW Faithers try to peddle.

You just don't care to include those who dispute the "Faith" in your collectivist thinking.

In the meantime, you remain totally unpersuasive.

Post their articles.

And leave your political insanity out of it.

 

[Liability]

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

Oh where is my little tin hat, tin hat, tin hat.

You people that believe that denial of reality affects that reality are a hoot.

No, you dork.

I think that there are far too many valid scientists who dispute the crap you and the other AGW Faithers try to peddle.

You just don't care to include those who dispute the "Faith" in your collectivist thinking.

In the meantime, you remain totally unpersuasive.

Post their articles.

And leave your political insanity out of it.

It's important to post their articles again so you can ignore them again?

It's not like you haven't seen them already, you dishonest hack.

Leave your directives to yourself. You are just a tool.

 

[Liability]

Just to get things rolling (yet again ... [sigh]) here is a list (an admittedly incomplete list) of scientists who dispute the "consensus" crap of AGW:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia