A real demonstration of warming from co2

[daveman]

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.

If you increase the amount of gas in a closed container, the pressure and therefore the temperature increases.

The prof in the OP lied to you.

 

[wirebender]

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,

Tell me flacaltenn, have you been following the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller? They have accurately predicted the temperatures of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and relative distances from the sun. They have pretty much proven that atmospheric composition has little, if anything to do with temperature beyond providing atmospheric pressure and have shown pretty decisively that the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation that forms the underpinnings for the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is incorrect as I have been arguing since day one.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Absolutely not open to the atmosphere matthew. If it were open to the air currents of the atmosphere, how could one be sure that the atmosphere within the subject tank had a higher CO2 content?

Don't be that gullible matthew, I know you are smarter than that.

Funny that camera wasn't on the tank when he finished dropping the ice. (conspiracy)

BUTTT -- I'll stay with the Prof's comment that "the CO2 will remain in the tank if I don't walk by there too often" to mean that the tank was open.. Furthermore, If you look closely -- there is air perturbation CLEARLY visible above the CO2 tank.. You can SEE the air density is changing at the top of the tank..

 

[flacaltenn]

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,

Tell me flacaltenn, have you been following the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller? They have accurately predicted the temperatures of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and relative distances from the sun. They have pretty much proven that atmospheric composition has little, if anything to do with temperature beyond providing atmospheric pressure and have shown pretty decisively that the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation that forms the underpinnings for the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is incorrect as I have been arguing since day one.

That could be VERY interesting stuff. There's a variety of compositions there ranging from virtually NO GHG to almost COMPLETELY GHG (methane -- Uranus? LOL)

However I'm not sure we have enough data on extraplanetary atmospheres to judge whether ANY of those are in thermal equilibrium at the surface or are radically changing. Or whether the atmosphere is THICK enough to matter (Venus) or if there's even solid surface on which measuring temperature makes sense. (Jupiter?)

On THIS planet, the water vapor dominates the thermal equilibrium, and there is HUGE opportunity for that cohort of gas to be variable. So we are special...

 

[Old Rocks]

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,

Tell me flacaltenn, have you been following the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller? They have accurately predicted the temperatures of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and relative distances from the sun. They have pretty much proven that atmospheric composition has little, if anything to do with temperature beyond providing atmospheric pressure and have shown pretty decisively that the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation that forms the underpinnings for the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is incorrect as I have been arguing since day one.

That could be VERY interesting stuff. There's a variety of compositions there ranging from virtually NO GHG to almost COMPLETELY GHG (methane -- Uranus? LOL)

However I'm not sure we have enough data on extraplanetary atmospheres to judge whether ANY of those are in thermal equilibrium at the surface or are radically changing. Or whether the atmosphere is THICK enough to matter (Venus) or if there's even solid surface on which measuring temperature makes sense. (Jupiter?)

On THIS planet, the water vapor dominates the thermal equilibrium, and there is HUGE opportunity for that cohort of gas to be variable. So we are special...

Water vapor is the primary GHG here on Earth, but CO2 is the valve that controls the water vapor.

A23A

 

[RollingThunder]

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,

Tell me flacaltenn, have you been following the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller? They have accurately predicted the temperatures of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and relative distances from the sun. They have pretty much proven that atmospheric composition has little, if anything to do with temperature beyond providing atmospheric pressure and have shown pretty decisively that the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation that forms the underpinnings for the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is incorrect as I have been arguing since day one.

Oh wiredup&bent, your pretensions of knowing anything about science are just soooo funny, you poor, poor deluded retard.

Here's something from the favorite pet scientist of the deniers and even he thinks you're nuts.

Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
December 30th, 2011

 

[starcraftzzz]

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.

If you increase the amount of gas in a closed container, the pressure and therefore the temperature increases.

The prof in the OP lied to you.

So you are so clulees that you do not realize that earth is a closed containted.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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,

Tell me flacaltenn, have you been following the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller? They have accurately predicted the temperatures of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and relative distances from the sun. They have pretty much proven that atmospheric composition has little, if anything to do with temperature beyond providing atmospheric pressure and have shown pretty decisively that the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation that forms the underpinnings for the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is incorrect as I have been arguing since day one.

Really? They proved that Venus is not real. Jesus how brainwashed and retarded are you?

 

[Saigon]

If you increase the amount of gas in a closed container, the pressure and therefore the temperature increases.

The prof in the OP lied to you.

Right.

Because it's a conspiracy, and this professor is part of an evil plot to bring down the United States, and hand power over to the Illuminati...just like in Dan Brown!

 

[wirebender]

[
So you are so clulees that you do not realize that earth is a closed containted.

closed system - a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it.

open system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits a transfer of matter or energy across it.

The earth is clearly an open system, not closed and constrained. Terms like open system, closed system, second law of thermodynamics, etc., have definitions for a reason, and those definitions are stated in absolute terms for a reason. If they were meant to mean something other than the definitions assigned to them, then the defintions would be different.

 

[wirebender]

If you increase the amount of gas in a closed container, the pressure and therefore the temperature increases.

The prof in the OP lied to you.

Right.

Because it's a conspiracy, and this professor is part of an evil plot to bring down the United States, and hand power over to the Illuminati...just like in Dan Brown!

Are you claiming that the ideal gas laws are wrong and increasing pressure does not increase temperature? Are you claiming that if you heat a heavier than air gas in a closed container (any heavier than air gas) that the temperature will not be higher than that in a container with just air?

 

[wirebender]

Really? They proved that Venus is not real. Jesus how brainwashed and retarded are you?

Whose sock are you and what the hell are you talking about?

 

[wirebender]

That could be VERY interesting stuff. There's a variety of compositions there ranging from virtually NO GHG to almost COMPLETELY GHG (methane -- Uranus? LOL)

However I'm not sure we have enough data on extraplanetary atmospheres to judge whether ANY of those are in thermal equilibrium at the surface or are radically changing. Or whether the atmosphere is THICK enough to matter (Venus) or if there's even solid surface on which measuring temperature makes sense. (Jupiter?)

On THIS planet, the water vapor dominates the thermal equilibrium, and there is HUGE opportunity for that cohort of gas to be variable. So we are special...

Follow their work. All of your objections have been nicely handled already. Their work represents a new paradigm where a greenhouse effect as described by climate science and explicitly denied by the laws of thermodynamics has no place in the discussion as it clearly does not exist as the term is used.

 

[daveman]

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.

If you increase the amount of gas in a closed container, the pressure and therefore the temperature increases.

The prof in the OP lied to you.

So you are so clulees that you do not realize that earth is a closed containted.

So, once again, we have someone who thinks that a small container with one variable is a perfect representation for an entire planet's atmosphere with millions of variables.

Sure. Uh huh.

 

[daveman]

If you increase the amount of gas in a closed container, the pressure and therefore the temperature increases.

The prof in the OP lied to you.

Right.

Because it's a conspiracy, and this professor is part of an evil plot to bring down the United States, and hand power over to the Illuminati...just like in Dan Brown!

I'd tell you to stop being stupid, but I don't think you can help it.

 

[skookerasbil]

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,

Tell me flacaltenn, have you been following the work being done by Nikolov and Zeller? They have accurately predicted the temperatures of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and relative distances from the sun. They have pretty much proven that atmospheric composition has little, if anything to do with temperature beyond providing atmospheric pressure and have shown pretty decisively that the derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation that forms the underpinnings for the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is incorrect as I have been arguing since day one.

Oh wiredup&bent, your pretensions of knowing anything about science are just soooo funny, you poor, poor deluded retard.

Here's something from the favorite pet scientist of the deniers and even he thinks you're nuts.

Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
December 30th, 2011

Like Ive been saying s0n.............the science doesnt matter..................



Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing
the Public on Climate Change

Even as the climate science becomes more definitive, polls show that public concern in the United States about global warming has been declining. What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?
by ted nordhaus and michael shellenberger

Last month, the Pew Research Center released its latest poll of public attitudes on global warming. On its face, the news was not good: Belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 percent in April of 2008 to 56 percent in October — an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is human-caused declined from 47 percent to 36 percent.

While some pollsters questioned these numbers, the Pew statistics are consistent with the findings by Gallup in March that public concern about global warming had declined, that the number of Americans who believed that news about global warming was exaggerated had increased, and that the number of Americans who believed that the effects of global warming had already begun had declined.




Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360



Thats Yale University s0n.........not exactly the bastion of conservative thought.

Seems the denier nuts are ummmm.................winning!!! (ps....the red highlighted above means.......you're losing)









Bottom line asshole?


You can post up that science shit from now until the cows come home. Wont mean dick if a huge majority thinks its a fucking hoax!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

The law of thermo does say that a colder Atmosphere can't warm a "hotter"(more heat) surface of the earth. Sun is far hotter then earth=shorter wave length. Case in point, Like the cup of ice is colder then the outside environement, which the heat goes from outside environement to inside environment. Working to equalize the temperature.

IR energy moves from warmer surface to Atmosphere through convection. Sure, if you're dealing with Radiation(light wave length) will warm the surface, but the earth then readmits IR from warmer surface to Atmosphere(space). I agree that pressure does "force" the Molecules closer together, which = a increase of temperature as that inreases the amount of times the molecules hit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is the perfect analogy for the plight of the alarmists in 2012...................

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit that at the thermodynamic level, Wirebender has a case. Increase pressure=higher temperatures.

The sun would have to increase its output to cause a warming of the planet...A increase in energy.

Water vapor is stored heat that evaporates(taking in heat) and releasing heat in latent heat as it condenses. So it doesn't break the rule.

 

[bobgnote]

When the oceanic food chain collapses, the Oglalla acquifier runs out, bees die, and the US breadbasket gets sick, all you oil company PAC-boys can wingnutski back to Russia, sell some oil, and beg food, from the Ukraine.

Then the sea level will take coastal cities. Don't forget to eat shit in a hurricane and die, wingnutskis!