A real demonstration of warming from co2

[wirebender]

The 50 major scientific organisations in the world ALL claim humn activity is playing a role in climate change. There is not a single scientific organisation who disagrees.

Is a piss poor logical fallacy really the best argument you can come up with? Are you really completely unaware that if you enclose any gas that is heavier than air whether or not it is a greenhouse gas, and then heat it up you will get a temperature increase? Have you never heard the term heat of compression? Do you really not know that if you confine a gas and heat it, the temperature will rise whether or not it is a greenhouse gas and the more heavier than air it is, the higher the temperature will increase?

Here is an experiment you can do if you like that should prove to you beyond any doubt that the so called greenhouse gasses do not cause warming.

Repeat the same experiment as shown in the video except instead of CO2, use methane. Methane is supposedly 20 times more powerful than CO2 as greenhouse gasses go. Only methane is lighter than air. As a result, it will be cooler than the tank containing just air because its heat of compression will be less. Not very useful if one intends to try to scare people about global warming, but infinitely valuable if one wants to show the truth about so called greenhouse gasses.

ONLY YOU KNOW!

And it isn't only him. It is anyone who actually grasps the physics in question and has the slightest talent for critical thinking. You really should be ashamed that you don't include yourself in those who understand the very basic physics at work in that experiment. You should be angry that the educational system failed you to such a degree.

 

[Saigon]

And it isn't only him. It is anyone who actually grasps the physics in question and has the slightest talent for critical thinking. .

Exactly - and we know the 50 major scientific bodies in the world (and the worlds two largest Meterological Services, incidentally) lack this kind of scientific knowledge.

Why would AYNONE imagine the UK Met Service would know a thing about meteorology?

 

[wirebender]

UK Met Service:

Again, you are talking about a political head, not a body of scientists. Are you aware that political heads make their statements independently of the body of scientists they represent and the body doesn't get to approve of, or even vote the statements up or down?

And again, you are using a logical fallacy as an argument. If you want to prove you are right, then you are going to have to defend the science. For example, can you show me anything like backradiation in the Stefan-Boltzman law? That is a good place to start. Nikolov and Zeller have just recently shown that the use of the Stefan-Boltzman law by the climate science community is completly wrong and it is the Stefan-Boltzman law that rests at the very foundation of the AGW claims.

Are you even aware that the energy budget upon which AGW claims are made represents a literal flat earth that does not rotate and only receives 25% as much energy from the sun as it actually gets? Are you even remotely aware of how fraudulent the science underpinning the AGW claims is? Can you even begin to enter a conversation about that science or are endless appeals to authority the best you can do?

 

[wirebender]

Exactly - and we know the 50 major scientific bodies in the world (and the worlds two largest Meterological Services, incidentally) lack this kind of scientific knowledge.

Again, scientific heads who make their proclamations independly of the actual scientific bodies. Do you know the difference between a political head and a scientific body?

I must gather from your responses that you are unable to discuss the science even at the most fundamental level and are, in fact, just a parrot who has taken a side in all likelyhood based on your political leanings but doesn't have the slightest inkling whether or not the information you repeat is true.

You saw a whole room full of supposedly educated people get scammed by a supposedly respectable professor and apparently not a single one of them was aware that they were being scammed. What does that say about the integrity of climate science?

 

[Saigon]

Wirebender -

This issue to me comes down to trust.

I figure none of us on this site have actually conducted research in glacial melt or rising sea levels, and I assume none of us on this site actually have the scientific skills to do so. I know I don't. If someone here has a PhD in Geophysics or Meterology then probably they do, but I suspect 90% of the posts on this forum (from both sides) are made by people who don't really know.

So who do we trust?

Of course we all have our own personal observations, but I mean apart from that.

I trust the professor of physics I interviewed a few months back, and who is one the world's leading experts in cloud formation, amongst other things. I trust the University of Helsinki, because I know that their funding is in no way linked to politics.

I trust the UK Met Service and the Royal Academy of Sciences because they are not funded by lobbies or companies with a stake in this. Their position has been the same through governments from left and right, and they have access to some of the best scientists in the world.

I really struggle with watching people not only rejecting, the views of people like the American Society of Meterologists, but actually ridiculing them as not undertanding meterology. That makes no sense to me.

 

[flacaltenn]

This one is interesting:

[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Th ABSTRACT says,

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]

Thanks Liability... There's a gem in there that folks should pay more attention to....

(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,

This whole argument about climate change is based on a single number. To reduce the complexity of a scientific argument like this to a single number is ludicrous.. And you could argue for years just how one COULD calculate such a number for today -- nevermind extrapolate it back 1000 yrs.. In the latter it is impossible to preserve the same measurement rules that we use for today..

 

[starcraftzzz]

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?

Nice of you to respond with "all the data is fault because ti proves me wrong"

 

[starcraftzzz]

UK Met Service:

Again, you are talking about a political head, not a body of scientists. Are you aware that political heads make their statements independently of the body of scientists they represent and the body doesn't get to approve of, or even vote the statements up or down?

You're talking about yourself and republicans not the Uk met service or scientists

And again, you are using a logical fallacy as an argument. If you want to prove you are right, then you are going to have to defend the science.

Defend it against what? your incoherent ramblings about how reality is a lie?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

OMFG!! That's right!

How did I miss that?

The biggest change is in pressure not atmospheric composition!

What a phony fucking fraud experiment!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This one is interesting:

[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Th ABSTRACT says,

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]

Wire has been saying this "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist." as long as he's been posting here

Why do the Warmers and Decline Hiders hate science?

Why do the deny the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He didn't keep pressure constant?

Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.

Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.

We're so lucky we have you here, because you are probably the only person in the world right now who Really Gets It.

The 50 major scientific organisations in the world ALL claim humn activity is playing a role in climate change. There is not a single scientific organisation who disagrees.

ONLY YOU KNOW!

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

 

[ScienceRocks]

I didn't see him close the tank...So I think it was open to the atmosphere.

 

[flacaltenn]

Back to the OP -- I waded thru the lecture... A couple of observations...

1) The premise that PRESSURE from the heavier CO2 was primarily the driver the for the temp rise in the tanks is mostly nullified by the fact that there appears to be venting of the tanks. In fact, the prof says the gas will remain in tank "as long as I don't walk by here too often". And you can see air turbulence in the video at the top of CO2 tank.. Now the sheer WEIGHT of all that massive amount of CO2 will STILL cause a de facto rise in pressure, but not to the extent that it would in a unvented tank..

2) Prof makes a reduction in simplicity by stating that the spectrum of absorption of CO2 will cause retention of heat in the atmosphere. No one denies (except WireBender) that this is technically correct, HOWEVER, when you look at the absorption bands of CO2 and compare to Water Vapor, MOST of the major absorption bands of CO2 directly correspond to the same bands in Water Vapor. In FACT -- only ONE absorption band of CO2 is outside of the spectrum of water vapor. This means that the ability of CO2 to ADD additional absorption to the atmosphere is conditioned by the even MODERATE presence of water vapor. And that in the cases where even MINOR amounts of Water Vapor (perhaps 100 times more in volume than CO2, but still relatively low in terms of "normal") that there is no opportunity for CO2 to add greenhouse effect. This means that a gas that is 100 times more effective at the GreenHouse effect (CO2) is mitigated under even small (compared to "normal") amounts of water vapor... He skips this observation and spends waaaaaay too much on Al Gore and his choice TV news...

3) What he is showing is NOT in dispute with me. But how the gases interract and are ratioed in the atmosphere is.....

4) I will not re-engage with WireBender on the premise of WHETHER CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I'll certainly support him in arguing that it's effects on warming are typically over-estimated....

5) I'd love to see that experiment repeated with a THIRD tank containing a small amount of steam!!!! (or even an inch of water at the bottom) And vary the steam with a constant amount of CO2...

 

[Saigon]

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

No, only YOU see that - the American Society of Geophysics and the UK Met Office have nowhere near the scientific knowledge you possess.

 

[starcraftzzz]

He didn't keep pressure constant?

Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.

Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.

We're so lucky we have you here, because you are probably the only person in the world right now who Really Gets It.

The 50 major scientific organisations in the world ALL claim humn activity is playing a role in climate change. There is not a single scientific organisation who disagrees.

ONLY YOU KNOW!

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

Yep because reality is a fraud because it proves you wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

No, only YOU see that - the American Society of Geophysics and the UK Met Office have nowhere near the scientific knowledge you possess.

Do the same experiment with only 100PPM of CO2

 

[IanC]

I agree with wirebender that Muller's CO2 experiment should be replicated using standardized methods and an assortment of GHGs and non-GHGs. it could turn out to be very informative.


it reminds me of the experiment done by Bill Nye the science guy for Al Gore's 24 hour global warming marathon last year. when A. Watts fastidiously replicated the experiment he found that it was a sham.

it is truly unfortunate that organizations are willing to purposely deceive people in the name of 'The Cause'.

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

No, only YOU see that - the American Society of Geophysics and the UK Met Office have nowhere near the scientific knowledge you possess.

Do the same experiment with only 100PPM of CO2

Since we are now up to 392 ppm, better make that 112.

 

[code1211]

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

Well, if this research is from the same era in which scientists proved conclusively that the British were inately superior to any other race, how could we doubt this?

 

[code1211]

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

You can count your examples on 2 or 3 fingers and they were all millions of years ago.

You are claiming that the geological record can discern a difference of a couple hundred years at the historic distance of 50 million years.

This challenges any level of gullibility.