First, and only, CO2 experiment

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
May 20, 2009
143,338
65,436
2,330
Unlike the USMB AGW Agitprop posters, I read the crap the AGW cult spews out. I've challenged them for 2 decades post one single experiment linking a 280 to 400PPM CO2 increase with temperature; they never did and never will - or can. At those levels CO2 has no impact on temperature. Anywho, I found that their Lord Tyndall, likely plagiarized his "research" from this woman.

Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect

She took 2 glass tubes side by side and conducted temperature experiments varying pressure and gas. What she found that a 100% "normal air" cylinder will heat to 106F, one filled with CO2 (praise be his holy name) will heat to 125%. So a 100% CO2 will add 19 to temperature, at that ratio going from 280 to 400PPM likely adds nothing.

Thanks for failing the AGW "Theory"!
 
Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

And her experiment involved a CO2 cylinder with a concentration of one million parts per million..
 
th


Been saying years that the atmosphere has to be thick as soup, like Venus, for CO2 to trap the heat as the "Global Warming experts" claim.

The real climate change driver of the earth is the oceans.

*****SMILE*****



:)
 
Yup, them thar Ideal Gas Laws are a bugger!
 
th


Been saying years that the atmosphere has to be thick as soup, like Venus, for CO2 to trap the heat as the "Global Warming experts" claim.

The real climate change driver of the earth is the oceans.

*****SMILE*****



:)


CO2 doesn't trap heat on venus either. In order for CO2 to trap energy it must be changed from predominantly short wave which is what comes in from the sun to predominantly long wave which is what radiates from the surface...very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of venus.

The temperature there is due to pressure.....if the atmosphere were 90 times as thick as here on earth but was hydrogen, or helium, the temperature would still be what it is now...this is evidenced by the fact that the gas giants, jupiter, saturn, etc have very high temperatures deep within their atmospheres even though the solar energy that reaches them is very weak, and there are no so called greenhouse gasses to speak of in their atmospheres...
 
Unlike the USMB AGW Agitprop posters, I read the crap the AGW cult spews out. I've challenged them for 2 decades post one single experiment linking a 280 to 400PPM CO2 increase with temperature; they never did and never will - or can. At those levels CO2 has no impact on temperature. Anywho, I found that their Lord Tyndall, likely plagiarized his "research" from this woman.

Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect

She took 2 glass tubes side by side and conducted temperature experiments varying pressure and gas. What she found that a 100% "normal air" cylinder will heat to 106F, one filled with CO2 (praise be his holy name) will heat to 125%. So a 100% CO2 will add 19 to temperature, at that ratio going from 280 to 400PPM likely adds nothing.

Thanks for failing the AGW "Theory"!
IF we were to take her closed systems at face value, we could divide that 19 Deg C by 1,000,000,000 and get an approximate warming value of what can be expected for each part per million.

19/1,000,000 = 0.000019 deg C/ ppm

But again, the left works at a futile argument...
 
Last edited:
Unlike the USMB AGW Agitprop posters, I read the crap the AGW cult spews out. I've challenged them for 2 decades post one single experiment linking a 280 to 400PPM CO2 increase with temperature; they never did and never will - or can. At those levels CO2 has no impact on temperature. Anywho, I found that their Lord Tyndall, likely plagiarized his "research" from this woman.

Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect

She took 2 glass tubes side by side and conducted temperature experiments varying pressure and gas. What she found that a 100% "normal air" cylinder will heat to 106F, one filled with CO2 (praise be his holy name) will heat to 125%. So a 100% CO2 will add 19 to temperature, at that ratio going from 280 to 400PPM likely adds nothing.

Thanks for failing the AGW "Theory"!
IF we were to take her closed systems at face value, we could divide that 19 Deg C by 1,000,000,000 and get an approximate warming value of what can be expected for each part per million.

19/1,000,000,000 = 0.000000019 deg C ppm

But again, the left works at a futile argument...

How goes it with your own experiment RE: IR and its ability to warm the air>
 
Unlike the USMB AGW Agitprop posters, I read the crap the AGW cult spews out. I've challenged them for 2 decades post one single experiment linking a 280 to 400PPM CO2 increase with temperature; they never did and never will - or can. At those levels CO2 has no impact on temperature. Anywho, I found that their Lord Tyndall, likely plagiarized his "research" from this woman.

Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect

She took 2 glass tubes side by side and conducted temperature experiments varying pressure and gas. What she found that a 100% "normal air" cylinder will heat to 106F, one filled with CO2 (praise be his holy name) will heat to 125%. So a 100% CO2 will add 19 to temperature, at that ratio going from 280 to 400PPM likely adds nothing.

Thanks for failing the AGW "Theory"!
IF we were to take her closed systems at face value, we could divide that 19 Deg C by 1,000,000,000 and get an approximate warming value of what can be expected for each part per million.

19/1,000,000,000 = 0.000000019 deg C ppm

But again, the left works at a futile argument...

How goes it with your own experiment RE: IR and its ability to warm the air>
Submitted for publication.

Its going to be quite interesting as they have taken way to long to make a decision. It appears we stepped on major toes in the establishment and until they give us an answer I am unable to ask another publisher to publish it. If I am correct, they have 63 more days until the agreement is null and void.
 
Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

And her experiment involved a CO2 cylinder with a concentration of one million parts per million..
If 1,000,000 ppm =19F, 120PPM = really, really small number, .002F
 
Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

And her experiment involved a CO2 cylinder with a concentration of one million parts per million..
If 1,000,000 ppm =19F, 120PPM = really, really small number, .002F
In an open/closed system it gets much, much, smaller...

0.000000019 x 120 = 0.00228 deg C...

its vanishingly small...

Have I ever said that mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system?
 
Last edited:
The sensitivity number continues to trend towards zero where it will eventually be.
 
Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

And her experiment involved a CO2 cylinder with a concentration of one million parts per million..
If 1,000,000 ppm =19F, 120PPM = really, really small number, .002F
In an open/closed system it gets much, much, smaller...

0.000000019 x 120 = 0.00228 deg C...

its vanishingly small...

Have I ever said that mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system?

OK, so we can tell mamooth and Old Rocks and the rest of the AGWCult they can stop looking for the experiment.
 
Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

And her experiment involved a CO2 cylinder with a concentration of one million parts per million..
If 1,000,000 ppm =19F, 120PPM = really, really small number, .002F
In an open/closed system it gets much, much, smaller...

0.000000019 x 120 = 0.00228 deg C...

its vanishingly small...

Have I ever said that mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system?

OK, so we can tell mamooth and Old Rocks and the rest of the AGWCult they can stop looking for the experiment.
No.... The experiment is incomplete and inconclusive. let them look on however as this is the high end of possible temperature increases due to CO2 rise.
 
Last night we made a pot roast in a pressure cooker and I wondered why no one ever made a CO2 cooker
 
LOL The Dunning Kruger boys are at it again. I wonder if you fellows could add up to three digits if you added up your respective IQ's? The first experiment that determined what the GHGs were in the atmosphere was done by Tyndall in 1859.

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

It is completely unsurprising that your alarmist source failed to mention that Tyndal said that CO2 or carbonic acid was among the feeblest of absorbers...
 
LOL The Dunning Kruger boys are at it again. I wonder if you fellows could add up to three digits if you added up your respective IQ's? The first experiment that determined what the GHGs were in the atmosphere was done by Tyndall in 1859.

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on
1,000,000 ppm only raises temperature 19 degrees. 120 ppm raises it not al all.

Thankfully Tyndal and Foote demonstrates the failure of the AGW theory
 

Forum List

Back
Top