No Evidence

[CrusaderFrank]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

Adding any gas causes it to cool, compared to a vacuum. Boring.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing Earth to cool?

Why would it?

You said adding gas cools, was that just for the first molecule added?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It`s been said here that it`s simple physics:
It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.

• 
  
• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
  
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
  
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
  
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
  
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

As if it were as simple as that:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf
Abstract
Through the application of astrophysical formulas,the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream
leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide
and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 me
ters.Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with
amolecule of carbon dioxide — which is 5 millisecond s (ms).
CONCLUSIONS:
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics
formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of
any gas of any planetary atmosphere. At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor
allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.004989 s, i.e.~5 milliseconds
. Through comparing the ability of water vapor to a void the quantum/waves to escape towards the outer space
with that of CO2 (0.004989 s), we can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is impossible according to Physics Laws.
If we consider also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total absorptivity and total emissivity than water vapor, we fairly conclude that carbon dioxide is not a driver of climate changes or global warming on the planet Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes
of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to that of its surroundings. Consequent
ly, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules
of the air. In consequence, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas

"Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air. In consequence, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas."

Residency time.... Why is it these people never think about the matter they are claiming is so powerful?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


I have been asking for just a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claims of climate alarmists for decades now and have never received the first piece.

I see alarmists claiming that such evidence exists all the time...sometimes they even post what passes for evidence in their minds like THIS. There is certainly observed, and measured data there, but none of it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and none of it even begins to establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...those things are certainly assumed in the example linked to, but there certainly is no evidence to support the assumption. And there is no paper there in which the hypothesized warming due to our production of CO2 has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called greenhouse gasses. Again, it is assumed, but assumptions based on lose correlation over a very short period of geological time are less than worthless in any scientific examination of an entity as large, variable, and chaotic as the global climate.

So there you go...I have stuck my chin out...I have made 3 very deliberate, and concise statements regarding the state of climate science and the evidence that mankind is having an effect on the global climate.

It is the complete absence of evidence challenging the 3 statements above that explain why I am a skeptic.

Prove me wrong. Don't tell me about the evidence that exists......don't tell me about the evidence you might believe you have produced...Step up to the plate and produce the evidence that I have quite clearly declared does not exist...

And when you can't, ask yourself why it is that you believe what you do regarding man made climate change.

The other thing that make people look stupid. We know that sand from the North Africa ends up in Fla, so does anything else over there. Same for Calif, comes from China and Japan. Climate is from everywhere.

 

[Wuwei]

Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.

The surface temperature of Venus is observed evidence. Do you disbelieve the Stefan Boltzmann law? If not, you will have to explain where the 15,700 W/m² radiation goes. It is as simple as that.

The SB law doesn't work with gasses,

What are you thinking? Read what I said again. I refered to the surface temperature of Venus. And you say gases!! Yes, I understand the question does not work with your pseudoscience. Or maybe you are just trying to be a troll again. Either way you simply can't handle how the Stefan Boltzmann law leads to 15,700 W/m² radiation.

 

[Wuwei]

It`s been said here that it`s simple physics:
It is simple physics. Here it is step by step.

• 
  
• Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
  
• That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
  
• Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
  
• That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
  
• The conservation of energy requires the above.

As if it were as simple as that:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf
Abstract
Through the application of astrophysical formulas,the mean free path length of a Quantum/wave stream
leaving the surface of the Earth to the outer space before it has collided with a molecule of carbon dioxide
and its total emissivity are calculated. The output of this algorithm indicates a value of about 33 me
ters.Also calculated is the time taken by a Quantum/wave to exit the atmosphere after it has collided with
amolecule of carbon dioxide — which is 5 millisecond s (ms).
CONCLUSIONS:
The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics
formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of
any gas of any planetary atmosphere. At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor
allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.004989 s, i.e.~5 milliseconds
. Through comparing the ability of water vapor to a void the quantum/waves to escape towards the outer space
with that of CO2 (0.004989 s), we can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is impossible according to Physics Laws.
If we consider also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total absorptivity and total emissivity than water vapor, we fairly conclude that carbon dioxide is not a driver of climate changes or global warming on the planet Earth.
The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes
of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to that of its surroundings. Consequent
ly, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules
of the air. In consequence, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas

The paper makes no sense physically. He has an equation of time for a quantum/wave to leave the Earth's atmosphere after colliding with molecules of CO2. What the author fails to realize is that after a quantum/wave (I suppose he means photon) hits a CO2 molecule, that photon completely disappears!! So it is impossible for it to leave the Earth.

Also he has an equation for the time to leave the earth.
t = r^2 / (l*c)
r^2 is the height of the troposphere squared. The mean free path is l, and c is the speed of light.

You will have to tell me where that equation comes from, and how a photon that disappeared can leave the earth. I'm not going to waste time looking it up.

 

[Wuwei]

So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory? Is that what you're saying?

no

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Filament Experiment Proves CO2 Causes Temperature to Fall, not Rise | PSI Intl

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the greenhouse gas theory – which claims carbon dioxide causes global warming and/or delays climate cooling – is false."

Wow, an experiment falsifies the AGW Hypothesis.

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

There is no question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...ask him what happens when you raise the emissivity of a thing...but only if you want to hear some real crazy..

ask him what happens when you raise the emissivity of a thing...

Good emitters are good absorbers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

Yes, it totally sucks. He kept defending his experiment in his blog comments even after he was totally beat down. That guy is a budding new SSDD.

So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory? Is that what you're saying?

So the experiment got the wrong readings because it didn't conform to the AGW Theory?

The experiment got it wrong because the guy was an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"New experiment demonstrates that adding CO2 to a filament does not cause the temperature of the filament to rise, but instead causes it to fall.

The filament that was losing energy only through radiation is now also losing energy through conduction.
Why wouldn't it be cooler?

Any decent analysis would need to take this effect into account. A better experiment would be to compare a pure nitrogen environment (transparent to the radiation) to one with CO2.

I have to agree.

This guy's experiment kind of sucks.

So adding CO2 causes temperature to fall. Interesting

Adding any gas causes it to cool, compared to a vacuum. Boring.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing Earth to cool?

Why would it?

You said adding gas cools, was that just for the first molecule added?

You said adding gas cools

Yes. With gas cools faster than in a vacuum.
That's why the Earth during the day is cooler than the Moon during the day.

was that just for the first molecule added?

No.

 

[SSDD]

Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence.

The surface temperature of Venus is observed evidence. Do you disbelieve the Stefan Boltzmann law? If not, you will have to explain where the 15,700 W/m² radiation goes. It is as simple as that.

The SB law doesn't work with gasses,

What are you thinking? Read what I said again. I refered to the surface temperature of Venus. And you say gases!! Yes, I understand the question does not work with your pseudoscience. Or maybe you are just trying to be a troll again. Either way you simply can't handle how the Stefan Boltzmann law leads to 15,700 W/m² radiation.

The molar version of the ideal gas law predicts the temperature of venus...neither the greenhouse gas hypothesis or the SB law is going to help you out...still no observed measured evidence to challenge mt statements....why do you keep talking? Is it jus to prove that you can't challenge the OP? Is it to show how many diversions from the OP you can think up?

 

[Crick]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy: It could only be emitted by the very uppermost molecules of the atmosphere. The time required to vertically traverse the atmosphere would be enormous. The mean free path of an LWIR photon would be angstroms, not meters and their energy would be transmitted more by conduction than radiation. That would put the temperature of the Earth into the thousands of degrees. It is only the greenhouse components of the atmosphere that can be considered "opaque" to LWIR. It passes quite nicely through nitrogen and oxygen. You truly are an idiot. Yet you claim to be an atmospheric physicist. How does that work out?

 

[Billy_Bob]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?

IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..

Your having a real hard time with simple concepts..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?

IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..

Your having a real hard time with simple concepts..

IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..

Do you really not know the definition of opaque?

 

[Wuwei]

The molar version of the ideal gas law predicts the temperature of venus...neither the greenhouse gas hypothesis or the SB law is going to help you out...still no observed measured evidence to challenge mt statements....why do you keep talking? Is it jus to prove that you can't challenge the OP? Is it to show how many diversions from the OP you can think up?

Nope, you got it backwards. The observed, measured temperatures and pressures of Venus are confirmation of the gas law.

You know, it really seems that the question of what happens to the 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus is a gottcha question for you. You imply it doesn't warm the atmosphere, but it was observed not to all radiate to space by a Russian experiment. Where does it go? Even when that simple well known physics is dumbed down you still can't handle it.

This discussion directly relates to your OP statement #2:

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Maybe it hasn't been measured in the atmosphere. I have no idea. You have not actually said that the atmosphere cannot be warmed by radiation, you are just talking about evidence.

Suppose your point #2 is correct. So what? What does that prove? The major point that you are afraid to address is the actuality of a huge amount of radiation emanating from the surface of Venus that largely disappears before it reaches its upper atmosphere. You are afraid to even think about the conservation of energy being violated.

The atmosphere is warmed by back radiation. There is no other explanation that has been promoted. Try to prove me wrong.

 

[jc456]

The molar version of the ideal gas law predicts the temperature of venus...neither the greenhouse gas hypothesis or the SB law is going to help you out...still no observed measured evidence to challenge mt statements....why do you keep talking? Is it jus to prove that you can't challenge the OP? Is it to show how many diversions from the OP you can think up?

Nope, you got it backwards. The observed, measured temperatures and pressures of Venus are confirmation of the gas law.

You know, it really seems that the question of what happens to the 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus is a gottcha question for you. You imply it doesn't warm the atmosphere, but it was observed not to all radiate to space by a Russian experiment. Where does it go? Even when that simple well known physics is dumbed down you still can't handle it.

This discussion directly relates to your OP statement #2:

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Maybe it hasn't been measured in the atmosphere. I have no idea. You have not actually said that the atmosphere cannot be warmed by radiation, you are just talking about evidence.

Suppose your point #2 is correct. So what? What does that prove? The major point that you are afraid to address is the actuality of a huge amount of radiation emanating from the surface of Venus that largely disappears before it reaches its upper atmosphere. You are afraid to even think about the conservation of energy being violated.

The atmosphere is warmed by back radiation. There is no other explanation that has been promoted. Try to prove me wrong.

dude, why not post how hot 270 PPM of CO2 is and then how hot is 400 PPM of it.

 

[SSDD]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?

The primary means of energy movement through the troposphere is conduction not radiation. Radiation is at best a bit player in transport of energy through the troposphere.

 

[SSDD]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?

IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..

Your having a real hard time with simple concepts..

Their whole hypothesis is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts. Ergo, no observed measured evidence to support what they believe.

 

[SSDD]

Nope, you got it backwards. The observed, measured temperatures and pressures of Venus are confirmation of the gas law.

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Maybe it hasn't been measured in the atmosphere. I have no idea. You have not actually said that the atmosphere cannot be warmed by radiation, you are just talking about evidence.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

The atmosphere is warmed by back radiation. There is no other explanation that has been promoted. Try to prove me wrong.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BillyBoy, if the atmosphere is opaque to LWIR, where does the LWIR's energy go to? Kind of a basic question. Got an answer?

Space you silly boy!

And how does LWIR, emitted from the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, get to space if the atmosphere is opaque to it?

IF its Opaque to, it then there is nothing to stop it..

Your having a real hard time with simple concepts..

Their whole hypothesis is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts. Ergo, no observed measured evidence to support what they believe.

Their whole hypothesis is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts

You are the expert on the complete misunderstanding of the basic concepts.