A simple request of the Man made warming crowd

[Kosh]

Exactly as predicted.

Yes your AGW cultist lies are very predictable.

 

[SwimExpert]

Exactly as predicted.

You know, if it wasn't for nonsense, you wouldn't have any sense at all.

 

[Abraham3]

Exactly as predicted.

You know, if it wasn't for nonsense, you wouldn't have any sense at all.

He's rejecting the Greenhouse Effect. Now... what was it you said about such individuals? Oh yeah

Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

 

[SwimExpert]

Exactly as predicted.

You know, if it wasn't for nonsense, you wouldn't have any sense at all.

He's rejecting the Greenhouse Effect. Now... what was it you said about such individuals? Oh yeah

Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Like I said. Nonsense.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect



I

n the experiment transport of heat we saw that the transfer of energy in the air via normal heat conductivity is not as easy as e.g. in water. The energy of light is transported in the air as electromagnetical radiation. Only a small fraction of this energy spectrum (visible light) can be experienced by our eyes. Other parts are invisible and damage e.g. our skin (as ultraviolet light) or we can feel it as warm radiation (infrared radiation). The temperature in the atmosphere is considerably governed by the capability of the air molecules to absorb this radiation.

An important fraction of the sunlight reaching the earth’s surface is absorbed, transformed into thermal energy and emitted again as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are these gases who efficiently absorb this infrared radiation emitted by the earth in order to keep the heat in the atmosphere like in a greenhouse.

In order to investigate this phenomenon we carry out the following experiment:


Experimental setup:


Glass vessels containing air (right) and CO2 (left)
two lights of identical output
two pans with water
black cardboard
Temperature feeler (data registration by a computer)

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

Here's a experiment.

carbon dioxide this gas is heated by far stronger than the air consisting mainly from nitrogen and oxygen

the experiment was flawed or biased on a number of reasons

but one in particular

they did not cool the containers

if they had they would have found out

the C02 jar would have cooled much faster

you guys like to be buffaloed

--LOL

 

[polarbear]

Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect



I

n the experiment transport of heat we saw that the transfer of energy in the air via normal heat conductivity is not as easy as e.g. in water. The energy of light is transported in the air as electromagnetical radiation. Only a small fraction of this energy spectrum (visible light) can be experienced by our eyes. Other parts are invisible and damage e.g. our skin (as ultraviolet light) or we can feel it as warm radiation (infrared radiation). The temperature in the atmosphere is considerably governed by the capability of the air molecules to absorb this radiation.

An important fraction of the sunlight reaching the earth’s surface is absorbed, transformed into thermal energy and emitted again as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are these gases who efficiently absorb this infrared radiation emitted by the earth in order to keep the heat in the atmosphere like in a greenhouse.

In order to investigate this phenomenon we carry out the following experiment:


Experimental setup:


Glass vessels containing air (right) and CO2 (left)
two lights of identical output
two pans with water
black cardboard
Temperature feeler (data registration by a computer)

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

Here's a experiment.

I know you & "Abraham" etc got a problem with math, that`s why you never noticed that this idiotic "experiment" did not list any of the numbers you would need to see what the difference in the absorption rate was between air and the vat which was filled with 100% undiluted CO2

I don`t have a problem with math so I`ll do it for you.
First you need to know the volume of gas in these jars.

He won`t tell you...but I do know that the bar where he clamped on his lamps are 1/2 inch bars because he is using standard lab clamps.
With a pixel ruler you can determine that the gas volume above the water level was only about 1.1 liters...which matches up if you compare it with the standard 250 ml vacuum filtration Erlenmeyer flask which every lab also has.
All you have to do now is look up the specific heat and the specific gravity for CO2 at 20 C...which is the temperature this bozo used for this stupid experiment.
To heat 1.1 liters of pure CO2 from 20 to 50 C takes only 0.424 KJ...which is only 424 watt seconds
The other thing that bozo "scientist" does not mention how many watts his heatlamps put out...but he does say that it took him 20 minutes to raise the CO2 by 30 degrees with the amount of IR it absorbed.
That is an absorption rate of only 0.35 watts for the vat which was filled with 100% CO2 and for the vat which had air it was 0.22 Watts.

Now you tell me what`s so sensational if you can only absorb at a rate of only 0.13 more watts but needed 1 million ppm instead of the just 400 ppm CO2 we got so far to do that.

That`s why you won`t see experiments that would show how many extra watts ( expressed as energy absorption rate) you get from the 120 ppm CO2 increase we are getting blamed for.
It`s miniscule !
How miniscule, that can be shown with an IR absorption spectrophotometer and has been done at the Max Planck Institute in Germany:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

The Climate Catastrophe
- A Spectroscopic Artifact?
by Dr. Heinz Hug
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]A 10 cm glass cylinder (150 cm[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE], with IR-transparent window) was filled with synthetic CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]-free and vapour-free air. Then a microlitre syringe was used to add CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] so that the concentration was 357 ppm (concentration in 1993). Moreover 2.6% water vapour was added. Applying the IR beam source (a so-called Globar , an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to 1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an FTIR spectrometer "Bruker IFS 48" coupled to a PC. The program OPUS was used as analyzing software. A zero bias measurement was made to be subtracted later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]For the edges of the 15 µm band the absorption area is certainly smaller than what is used by IPCC. IPCC [SIZE=-1][1990, p. 48][/SIZE] states "The effect of added carbon dioxide molecules is, however, significant at the edges of the 15 µm band, and in particular around 13.7 and 16 µm" [SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]^-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-^4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]^2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m^[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]^2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

And after Heinz published his results the AGW freaks went ballistic and did their usual smear tactic campaign...including trying to get Heinz Hug fired.
They went out of their way to complain to the Max Planck Institute because Heinz was using their web site to publish his results..but as you can see it`s up again since then

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect



I

n the experiment transport of heat we saw that the transfer of energy in the air via normal heat conductivity is not as easy as e.g. in water. The energy of light is transported in the air as electromagnetical radiation. Only a small fraction of this energy spectrum (visible light) can be experienced by our eyes. Other parts are invisible and damage e.g. our skin (as ultraviolet light) or we can feel it as warm radiation (infrared radiation). The temperature in the atmosphere is considerably governed by the capability of the air molecules to absorb this radiation.

An important fraction of the sunlight reaching the earth’s surface is absorbed, transformed into thermal energy and emitted again as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are these gases who efficiently absorb this infrared radiation emitted by the earth in order to keep the heat in the atmosphere like in a greenhouse.

In order to investigate this phenomenon we carry out the following experiment:


Experimental setup:


Glass vessels containing air (right) and CO2 (left)
two lights of identical output
two pans with water
black cardboard
Temperature feeler (data registration by a computer)

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

Here's a experiment.

I know you & "Abraham" etc got a problem with math, that`s why you never noticed that this idiotic "experiment" did not list any of the numbers you would need to see what the difference in the absorption rate was between air and the vat which was filled with 100% undiluted CO2

I don`t have a problem with math so I`ll do it for you.
First you need to know the volume of gas in these jars.

He won`t tell you...but I do know that the bar where he clamped on his lamps are 1/2 inch bars because he is using standard lab clamps.
With a pixel ruler you can determine that the gas volume above the water level was only about 1.1 liters...which matches up if you compare it with the standard 250 ml vacuum filtration Erlenmeyer flask which every lab also has.
All you have to do now is look up the specific heat and the specific gravity for CO2 at 20 C...which is the temperature this bozo used for this stupid experiment.
To heat 1.1 liters of pure CO2 from 20 to 50 C takes only 0.424 KJ...which is only 424 watt seconds
The other thing that bozo "scientist" does not mention how many watts his heatlamps put out...but he does say that it took him 20 minutes to raise the CO2 by 30 degrees with the amount of IR it absorbed.
That is an absorption rate of only 0.35 watts for the vat which was filled with 100% CO2 and for the vat which had air it was 0.22 Watts.

Now you tell me what`s so sensational if you can only absorb at a rate of only 0.13 more watts but needed 1 million ppm instead of the just 400 ppm CO2 we got so far to do that.

That`s why you won`t see experiments that would show how many extra watts ( expressed as energy absorption rate) you get from the 120 ppm CO2 increase we are getting blamed for.
It`s miniscule !
How miniscule, that can be shown with an IR absorption spectrophotometer and has been done at the Max Planck Institute in Germany:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

The Climate Catastrophe
- A Spectroscopic Artifact?
by Dr. Heinz Hug
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]A 10 cm glass cylinder (150 cm[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE], with IR-transparent window) was filled with synthetic CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]-free and vapour-free air. Then a microlitre syringe was used to add CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] so that the concentration was 357 ppm (concentration in 1993). Moreover 2.6% water vapour was added. Applying the IR beam source (a so-called Globar , an electrically heated silicon carbide bar at 1000 to 1200 degC and an adjustable interference filter) on one side, the absorption spectrum arriving at the other end was recorded. Then CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] was added to make 714 ppm. The equipment was an FTIR spectrometer "Bruker IFS 48" coupled to a PC. The program OPUS was used as analyzing software. A zero bias measurement was made to be subtracted later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]For the edges of the 15 µm band the absorption area is certainly smaller than what is used by IPCC. IPCC [SIZE=-1][1990, p. 48][/SIZE] states "The effect of added carbon dioxide molecules is, however, significant at the edges of the 15 µm band, and in particular around 13.7 and 16 µm" [SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]^-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-^4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]^2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m^[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]^2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

And after Heinz published his results the AGW freaks went ballistic and did their usual smear tactic campaign...including trying to get Heinz Hug fired.
They went out of their way to complain to the Max Planck Institute because Heinz was using their web site to publish his results..but as you can see it`s up again since then

So real science provides a wwe smackdown on the AGWCult insanity which explains why they only post their altered data run through their broken models

 

[Abraham3]

How much thicker (ie vertical dimension) is the Earth's atmosphere than those two tanks?

 

[polarbear]

How much thicker (ie vertical dimension) is the Earth's atmosphere than those two tanks?

Asking a dumb question like that tells me just how dumb you are.
You keep bragging how much you know about physics
So you should have known that all it takes at 400ppm CO2 is a path length of just ~10 meters to absorb all the 15 µm "black body" IR a 20 deg C surface is trying to shed,
So how exactly is 15 µm IR supposed to make it back down as "back radiation" heat through more than 10 meters?...Never mind from the top of the atmosphere !

So why the f... are you asking a stupid question like that?
No need to answer, it was entirely in line with the rest of your idiotic remarks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much thicker (ie vertical dimension) is the Earth's atmosphere than those two tanks?

Asking a dumb question like that tells me just how dumb you are.
You keep bragging how much you know about physics
So you should have known that all it takes at 400ppm CO2 is a path length of just ~10 meters to absorb all the 15 µm "black body" IR a 20 deg C surface is trying to shed,
So how exactly is 15 µm IR supposed to make it back down as "back radiation" heat through more than 10 meters?...Never mind from the top of the atmosphere !

So why the f... are you asking a stupid question like that?
No need to answer, it was entirely in line with the rest of your idiotic remarks.

AGWCult responds: Denier!

 

[ScienceRocks]

If Polarbear is right then most of science today is truly fucked.

We have entire fields of science like climatology and Meteorology that's producing the better part of a generation of scientist that doesn't understand the basics of co2. That makes me cry and very sad if that's true.

What you're pointing out is the entire debate that goes all the way to the highest levels of science is a crook of shit. My problem is I simply don't want to believe that science is this broken.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I agree with the op of this thread as solid and repeatable experiments does need to be made of the greenhouse effects of co2. This needs to be posted on the front page of the noaa. Major schools of science shouldn't leave their supporters out in the cold to fight off the skeptics like this as I have to search for this data throughout google just to try to defend global warming.

This is wrong. We warmers should just post a link to a repeatable experiment to blow the skeptics away...

 

[HenryBHough]

Your faith underwhelms!

 

[Abraham3]

How much thicker (ie vertical dimension) is the Earth's atmosphere than those two tanks?

Asking a dumb question like that tells me just how dumb you are.
You keep bragging how much you know about physics
So you should have known that all it takes at 400ppm CO2 is a path length of just ~10 meters to absorb all the 15 µm "black body" IR a 20 deg C surface is trying to shed,
So how exactly is 15 µm IR supposed to make it back down as "back radiation" heat through more than 10 meters?...Never mind from the top of the atmosphere !

So why the f... are you asking a stupid question like that?
No need to answer, it was entirely in line with the rest of your idiotic remarks.

So... CO2 never emits photons?

 

[Abraham3]

I ask again, does CO2 never emit photons?

I was being rhetorical. Yes, it does emit photons. So the 15 micron radiation gets absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted , absorbed and reemitted , absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted, absorbed and reemitted and then absorbed by earth or water or flies off into space.

 

[Abraham3]

He won`t tell you...but I do know that the bar where he clamped on his lamps are 1/2 inch bars because he is using standard lab clamps.

Wow... now THIS is impressive. Half inch bars and standard clamps. You REALLY know your climate science.