Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

So you are saying the CO2 experiment where the one fishtank holds more heat than the other is wrong?

You must first understand what you are seeing for it to have any real meaning. In the fish tank experiment, you are proving that the emission spectrum of one CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule and if you remove conduction and convection from the equation, you can achieve a buildup of heat. The experiment is not analogous to the atmosphere because it is performed in a closed system.

Frank's point about them needing to do it at a200ppm increase is valid. I have seen this too many times at science fairs to disbelieve.

Since you seem to hang out at science fairs, next time you see the experiment, ask about the relative humidity in the different tanks. Even a small difference can make a considerable difference in heat accumulation as water vapor actually does have the ability to trap and store heat. Not that it makes any difference with regard to the experiment's validity because experiments performed in a closed system are not analogous to open systems.
 
now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.

I have laid out my position. I have told you what I think, I have provided and described the laws of physics upon which I base my position and have done the math to prove my claims. I even got a warmer to go through the math for himself and he proved my claims.

To date, you have done nothing more than voice an opinion that I am wrong and now you are questioning my eductation based on a description that you don't like? Tell you what Ian; you tell me which law of physics I am misrepresenting, or misapplying, or where my math error is or put a disclaimer in your posts that states clearly that you are voicing nothing more than an opinion that you can not support in any way other than an appeal to authority.

I have laid my entire position out for anyone on this board to look at. To date, no one has pointed out any error at all. If you see an error, then name it and prove it by the same method that I laid out my position. Describe the law of physics that supports your claim and show me the math.

You are unbelieveable to question my education when you aren't prepared to show the scientific basis upon which you come to your conclusion. If you haven't done the math or taken time to learn the laws of physics upon which the claims of climate science must adhere then in your belief regarding CO2, you are no different than any warmist believer who simply takes the word of anyone who says what they want to hear.

I showed you my math. Do you have a mathematical rebuttal to my position. Yes or no?
 
So you are saying the CO2 experiment where the one fishtank holds more heat than the other is wrong?

You must first understand what you are seeing for it to have any real meaning. In the fish tank experiment, you are proving that the emission spectrum of one CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule and if you remove conduction and convection from the equation, you can achieve a buildup of heat. The experiment is not analogous to the atmosphere because it is performed in a closed system.

Frank's point about them needing to do it at a200ppm increase is valid. I have seen this too many times at science fairs to disbelieve.

Since you seem to hang out at science fairs, next time you see the experiment, ask about the relative humidity in the different tanks. Even a small difference can make a considerable difference in heat accumulation as water vapor actually does have the ability to trap and store heat. Not that it makes any difference with regard to the experiment's validity because experiments performed in a closed system are not analogous to open systems.

Ah, the old closed vs open system debate.

Seems the values of a glass case vs the earth's gravity are to be compared now.

The hard math end looses me to be honest. Computer upgrades at work taking most of my time.

So you are saying co2 works different in a closed environment where heat can bleed off through glass into the atmosphere vs in the earth's atmosphere where heat can bleed off into space?
 
Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source. Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think
 
Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source. Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think




Exactly! The only thing being demonstrated in that type of experiment are ideal gas laws.
 
Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source. Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think




Exactly! The only thing being demonstrated in that type of experiment are ideal gas laws.

But the gasses are staying the same....there is no physical property change in the co2 when u let it out of the tank.
 
now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.

Step on up and prove me wrong. Be sure to show your work.

These people already have.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)




<=Other gases

<=Simple models

Greenhouse Speculations: Arrhenius and Chamberlin
TOP OF PAGE
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Again, for fuller discussion follow the link at right
 
Relative humidity should stay similar or go down if you are not using dry ice as a co2 source. Pressure/density can be a more likely issue i would think




Exactly! The only thing being demonstrated in that type of experiment are ideal gas laws.

But the gasses are staying the same....there is no physical property change in the co2 when u let it out of the tank.




Think about it a minute or two.
 
Ah, the old closed vs open system debate.

Seems the values of a glass case vs the earth's gravity are to be compared now.

Gravity is not the issue. Conduction and convection are the most efficient means of moving energy at low altitudes. Remove them from the equation and you remove any similarity to the open system of the earth's atmosphere.

So you are saying co2 works different in a closed environment where heat can bleed off through glass into the atmosphere vs in the earth's atmosphere where heat can bleed off into space?

No. The laws of physics work the same whether the system is closed or open. The difference between closed and open systems with regard to atmosphere is that you remove the most efficient means of moving heat (conduction and convection) from the system. Radiation doesn't become the most expedient means of moving energy until you get into the upper atmosphere where it is really the only means of moving energy into cold space.
 
These people already have.

Again I ask rocks, which part of that scripture do you believe represents proof of anything? I keep asking and you remain unable to answer the question.

Why not just admit that the science is way over your head and for you it is a matter of faith.
 
wirebender- is this the thread where you explained everything? this is where I joined the subject.
 
now I am sure you havent taken any higher chem or physics classes. I thought your bizarre EM theory was just an aberration but you are self taught with a bunch of crazy fundemental errors that no one has set you straight on.

Step on up and prove me wrong. Be sure to show your work.

These people already have.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)




<=Other gases

<=Simple models

Greenhouse Speculations: Arrhenius and Chamberlin
TOP OF PAGE
The next major scientist to consider the Earth's temperature was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages, and he saw CO2 as the key. Why focus on that rare gas rather than water vapor, which was far more abundant? Because the level of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuated daily, whereas the level of CO2 was set over a geological timescale by emissions from volcanoes. If the emissions changed, the alteration in the CO2 greenhouse effect would only slightly change the global temperature—but that would almost instantly change the average amount of water vapor in the air, which would bring further change through its own greenhouse effect. Thus the level of CO2 acted as a regulator of water vapor, and ultimately determined the planet’s long-term equilibrium temperature. (Again, for fuller discussion follow the link at right

How does quoting the work of a Eugencisist who claimed that, at a time when homeopathy and phrenology were real sciences, warming would be good, help your cause?

How?

Can you show us how adding 50PPM CO2 causes temperatures to increase in a lab setting or are there too many other variables at play?
 

Forum List

Back
Top