First, and only, CO2 experiment

[CrusaderFrank]

Then ∆T + .8 ...

Yes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.

A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen..

The site clearly says "This coating reflects otherwise wasted infrared radiation back onto the bulb filament. By recycling the radiant heat, less energy is required to raise the filament temperature to the optimum level. The result is a more efficient light bulb".

Do you think the engineers who designed the IR halogen bulb are fooled or are fooling us? Do you think the bulb is a scam and should be taken off the market? I don't think so. Science, does not say that the frequency being reflected back must be higher than emitted. So what you say is not true. Where did you get that?
.

LOL

It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So why aren't we tracking atmospheric H2O?

How much of this imaginary "temperature increase" is created by 120ppm of CO2? You sure seem smart, can you provide that number along with the calculations

We report water vapor by dew point temperature, and along with air temperature we can then calculate relative humidity and mass ... we also report liquid water content by cloud cover ... these values are given at most of the bigger airports every hour ... Chicago is currently reporting 91% RH, fog at the surface, and a layer of broken clouds at 2,500' ...

From the formula ∆T = k 5.35 ln (CF/CI) ... where ∆T is the temperature rise, k is the sensitivity factor, CI is the initial CO2 concentration and CF is the final CO2 concentration

Substituting our known values:

∆T = k 5.35 ln (405/280) --> ∆T = 1.99 k ºC

K is unknown at this time ... so this is a point of debate ... typical Hysteria tracks give this as k = 0.8, which in turn means current carbon dioxide levels have already increased surface temperatures 1.6ºC ... unfortunately we've only measured 0.6ºC increase, or k = 0.3 ... meaning temperature isn't as sensitive to carbon dioxide as it needs to be to cause problems ...

Why this value of k hasn't been determined experimentally is beyond my ability to understand ... perhaps it has and the National Enquirer or Nature and their like haven't reported it ... we do know it's a positive value qualitatively, the video wuwei posted above clearly demonstrates that fact ...

Also yet to be determined is how carbon sensitivity and emissivity are connected ... that's definitely a broken link in our cause-and-effect chain ... and without this link, we need to treat climate models with suspicion ... there's some assumptions that are made that are just not verified in any way yet ...

Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?

.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???

 

[ReinyDays]

Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?

.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???

Same place 3 x 10^8 comes from ... it just is ...

 

[Wuwei]

It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..

For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?

It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,

Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.

A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.​

.

 

[xband]

It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..

For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?

It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,

Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.

A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.​

.

What about the second law of Thermodynamics? Why did life form with the third law of Thermodynamics?

 

[xband]

It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..

For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?

It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,

Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.

A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.​

.

What about the second law of Thermodynamics? Why did life form with the third law of Thermodynamics?

Those pesky Tachyons did it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?

.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???

Same place 3 x 10^8 comes from ... it just is ...

Do you multiply 5.35 × LN (Cf - C1)?

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes ... ln (405/280) = ln 1.45 = 0.372 ... what we saying here is that temperature change is proportional to the logarithm of concentration change ... 5.35 is the constant of proportionality ... so now we have ∆T = 5.35 x 0.372 x k = 1.99 x k ... whatever k is, it's still unknown ...

 

[SSDD]

Sorry where does the 5.35 come in?

.8 * 5.35 LN (400-280) ???

Same place 3 x 10^8 comes from ... it just is ...

There is a disturbingly large amount of "it just is" found in climate science...

 

[SSDD]

Didn't really even look...at its core, such an experiment would turn out to be some sort of side show hucksterism sufficient to fool someone who wants to be fooled since it is impossible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation...

If you want to provide a link to the experiment I will be happy to try and figure out why you are being fooled into thinking that the body in question is being warmed by its own radiation.

Go to the other thread ... the one specifically started so these types of discussions don't interfere with the topic at hand ... please explain there why there's 15µm radiation on moonless nights ... the experiment is lay out IR film face up, expose it, then see if the film is fogged ...

You think there is no light on a moonless night? There you go...question answered...just because it is moonless doesn't mean that there is no light.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It takes less energy because it is absorbing reflected energy to maintain its heat level allowing it to consume less energy. It does not emit more energy and doesn't get any hotter... Epic failure..

For once you got the physics right, and that is exactly what I posted. Why do you think it was an epic failure if you agree with me?

It was SSDD who contradicted the post. You now disagree with him. He said in post #52,

Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.

A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen.​

.

What about the second law of Thermodynamics? Why did life form with the third law of Thermodynamics?

What about the second law of Thermodynamics?

What about it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Didn't really even look...at its core, such an experiment would turn out to be some sort of side show hucksterism sufficient to fool someone who wants to be fooled since it is impossible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation...

If you want to provide a link to the experiment I will be happy to try and figure out why you are being fooled into thinking that the body in question is being warmed by its own radiation.

Go to the other thread ... the one specifically started so these types of discussions don't interfere with the topic at hand ... please explain there why there's 15µm radiation on moonless nights ... the experiment is lay out IR film face up, expose it, then see if the film is fogged ...

You think there is no light on a moonless night? There you go...question answered...just because it is moonless doesn't mean that there is no light.

You think there is no light on a moonless night?

He said, "please explain there why there's 15µm radiation on moonless nights"

 

[ReinyDays]

There is a disturbingly large amount of "it just is" found in climate science...

Actually, this comes from mathematics ... proportionalities show up everywhere ... you should be using them on your IRS Form 4562 ... unless you like paying taxes ...

I'm sure you've seen the equation "the circumference of a circle is equal to 3.14 times the diameter" ... that number 3.14 "just is" ... no explanation available ... call it dogma if you want, you'd not be far off the truth ... but the politically correct term is axiom ... so please, we don't want our math-geeks breaking down and crying again, do we? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Those pesky Tachyons did it.

"Those pesky Tachyons will have did it" ... sounds awkward but that's the proper grammering ... the effect occurs before the cause ...

 

[ReinyDays]

You think there is no light on a moonless night? There you go...question answered...just because it is moonless doesn't mean that there is no light.

Yes ... I've been on eyepiece duty before ... takes a good three or four hours to image that light on film that's packed in dry ice ... and someone has to sit and keep the telescope centered on the target ...

That's not why your film is being fogged after a couple of seconds exposure ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes ... ln (405/280) = ln 1.45 = 0.372 ... what we saying here is that temperature change is proportional to the logarithm of concentration change ... 5.35 is the constant of proportionality ... so now we have ∆T = 5.35 x 0.372 x k = 1.99 x k ... whatever k is, it's still unknown ...

It makes up nicely with the AGW Theory and I wonder if there is lab work showing the same results?

 

[daveman]

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

So, he conducted an experiment with, what, one variable?

And that's supposed to accurately predict the response of an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans, driven by the neighborhood star (which is not a constant source of radiation), comprising so many variables we don't even know how many there are?

Okay, then.

 

[daveman]

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

^ no math, no science, not unexpected.

BUT HE CITED THE FOUNDER OF HIS CHURCH YOU HAVE TO BELEEVE

 

[ReinyDays]

It makes up nicely with the AGW Theory and I wonder if there is lab work showing the same results?

There you go ... theory is theory ... now we need to demonstrate whether the theory is correct or not ... like shining a light on a vessel of gas and see if the temperature goes up ... I'd like to think someone has done this under laboratory conditions, but I sure can't find any results yet ... my Google-Fu ain't very good, maybe someone else can go looking for awhile ...