No Evidence

[SSDD]

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...

View attachment 230546


Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases

So you have a measurement of energy moving from warmer gasses to a cooler instrument...so what? The second law of thermodynamics predicts that.That only proves that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

 

[SSDD]

if you think that, then either you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem...from the second paragraph..."I went to Germany to join his seminar, and to examine for myself his apparatus that appears to measure vertical heat gradients in columns of air, water, and other substances in steady, non-convecting equilibrium, and appears to show that in isolation, they are warmer at the bottom than at the top."

I skimmed through her article which read like a wide eyed girl at a science fair. So yes I didn't read the part about air. I did read Graeff's original paper that had far more substance.

Guess you missed, or ignored the part where ha had done the experiment more than 850 times as of 2012...no telling how many times by now checking the environment, vertical orientation, effects of size, effects of number of layers, the insulations, thermal equalizers, thermocouples, the instruments’ bias and sellotape fixings, the convectance impeders, substances actually tested, dataloggers, and software and anything else that might give a false positive for a temperature gradient.

And you deem to discount the lapse rate,,,if it is not a gravity/pressure induced temperature gradient, what is it?

Why would I guess that? All I meant is what he said himself at the end of his article, that the experiment should be verified by others.

Why do you think I would have discounted the lapse rate if he measured air? The gravity induced lapse rate was already measured long ago from surface to high in the atmosphere. His experiment would find the same lapse rate in a tube of air, even though the differential would be very small due to the relative shortness of the tube.

Where did he make that claim? Read. Maybe find an adult to help you comprehend what the words actually say rather than filtering them through your bias...you know..pretend to be an actual scientist rather than a practicing cult hack.

The original paper by Graeff that you quoted said (my bold face):

In isolated systems - with no exchange of matter and energy across its borders - force fields like gravity can generate in macroscopic assemblies of molecules temperature, density, and concentration gradients. The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.​

Do you believe his statement about entropy being decreased?

.

Did i see that he said "may"..is that a declarative statement? At present, he says his work simply challenges a particular interpretation of the second law...not the law itself.

Again...why can't you simply read what is written without having to reinterpret it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...

View attachment 230546


Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases

Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogen cooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element.

Darn it. These measurements don't count.
You see, the molecules in the air can tell when the detector is cooled.
Until it's cooled, they strictly emit towards space.
It's almost like the molecules are intelligent.

 

[jc456]

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

 

[Crick]

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...

View attachment 230546


Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases

So you have a measurement of energy moving from warmer gasses to a cooler instrument...so what? The second law of thermodynamics predicts that.That only proves that you are easily fooled by instrumentation.

Your comment proves you didn't read the text, you're stupid and that you lie.

 

[Wuwei]

Did i see that he said "may"..is that a declarative statement? At present, he says his work simply challenges a particular interpretation of the second law...not the law itself.

Again...why can't you simply read what is written without having to reinterpret it?

I'm not going to quibble about parsing sentences. Let me word it this way: Do you believe Graeff can design a system that causes entropy to decrease?

 

[jc456]

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

 

[SSDD]

Your comment proves you didn't read the text, you're stupid and that you lie.

You have been fooled by instrumentation...what else is new?

 

[SSDD]

Did i see that he said "may"..is that a declarative statement? At present, he says his work simply challenges a particular interpretation of the second law...not the law itself.

Again...why can't you simply read what is written without having to reinterpret it?

I'm not going to quibble about parsing sentences. Let me word it this way: Do you believe Graeff can design a system that causes entropy to decrease?

Of course you won't since it is you who is altering what the man said. You do it all the time. You don't read to hear when is being said and maybe learn something....you read with pre determined intent..

Did he say that he did?

 

[SSDD]

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

you have to excuse him...he thinks IR can heat the air.

 

[jc456]

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you still drunk?

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

 

[jc456]

You think gas in a car is exposed to the sun and you think I’m drunk! LOL

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the air inside a car is exposed to sunlight.

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink

Yes, I'm sorry that I used to car in the Sun to illustrate your idiocy.

 

[jc456]

Not the gas tank! And the material in the car absorbs, dashboard steering wheel seats convection. The car is an oven

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink

Yes, I'm sorry that I used to car in the Sun to illustrate your idiocy.

Solid vs air? You think they are equal! Now that’s hilarious!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! Glad you could admit your error.

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink

Yes, I'm sorry that I used to car in the Sun to illustrate your idiocy.

Solid vs air? You think they are equal! Now that’s hilarious!

No, the air in your skull is not equal.

 

[jc456]

Error? How does this heat the gas in the tank?

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink

Yes, I'm sorry that I used to car in the Sun to illustrate your idiocy.

Solid vs air? You think they are equal! Now that’s hilarious!

No, the air in your skull is not equal.

When you got nothing!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one was talking about gasoline. That's your vodka again.

You started it with Introduction of a car dude! Don’t drink

Yes, I'm sorry that I used to car in the Sun to illustrate your idiocy.

Solid vs air? You think they are equal! Now that’s hilarious!

No, the air in your skull is not equal.

When you got nothing!

You're proof of that.