Post the Experiment

[IanC]

however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.

I'm sure it was measured, and they should have explicitly said what it was. It seems that they probably fed it 7% which is higher than the atmosphere in density, but only equivalent to only about 500 feet in altitude. So it's not all that much for the purposes they were after - a demo.

The Myth busters brought in measuring devices for some reason. CO2 was being measured somewhere and it was decreasing. Luke what would happen in a non airtight box after it received a bolus of additional CO2. There wasn't any mention of constructing controls with no CO2 therefore I think we can assume the control was at standard CO2 concentration and the CO2 box was increased, apparently in the vicinity of 200 times.

Using CO2 which has been doubled at least seven times to get 1C increase doesn't leave me impressed actually.

 

[jc456]

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.

I did nut job. reread my post dude/ dudette.

 

[jc456]

however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.

I'm sure it was measured, and they should have explicitly said what it was. It seems that they probably fed it 7% which is higher than the atmosphere in density, but only equivalent to only about 500 feet in altitude. So it's not all that much for the purposes they were after - a demo.

The Myth busters brought in measuring devices for some reason. CO2 was being measured somewhere and it was decreasing. Luke what would happen in a non airtight box after it received a bolus of additional CO2. There wasn't any mention of constructing controls with no CO2 therefore I think we can assume the control was at standard CO2 concentration and the CO2 box was increased, apparently in the vicinity of 200 times.

Using CO2 which has been doubled at least seven times to get 1C increase doesn't leave me impressed actually.

ding, ding, ding, ding

 

[jc456]

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.

Thanks, that makes me honest. I only used 7% so the current argument wouldn't happen. It seems that I was right in predicting that.

it is truly funny that you missed that and just happened to pick that exact number. hmmmmmmm

 

[IanC]

It is a shame that Mythbusters didn't explain what they ere doing more thoroughly, and even worse that they refused to answer questions after the airing of the show.

 

[Wuwei]

however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.

I'm sure it was measured, and they should have explicitly said what it was. It seems that they probably fed it 7% which is higher than the atmosphere in density, but only equivalent to only about 500 feet in altitude. So it's not all that much for the purposes they were after - a demo.

The Myth busters brought in measuring devices for some reason. CO2 was being measured somewhere and it was decreasing. Luke what would happen in a non airtight box after it received a bolus of additional CO2. There wasn't any mention of constructing controls with no CO2 therefore I think we can assume the control was at standard CO2 concentration and the CO2 box was increased, apparently in the vicinity of 200 times.

Using CO2 which has been doubled at least seven times to get 1C increase doesn't leave me impressed actually.

You have no basis for any assumption about leakage. Since the box was heating up and increasing internal pressure, any leakage would be out to the room not into the box. Outward leakage would preserve the percentage of the gases inside the box.

As I said many times the 7% CO2 is only equivalent to around 500 feet of atmosphere. To me the experiment was a demonstration that backscatter can have an effect of "blanketing". You are trying to make it more than it was intended.

 

[Wuwei]

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.

Thanks, that makes me honest. I only used 7% so the current argument wouldn't happen. It seems that I was right in predicting that.

it is truly funny that you missed that and just happened to pick that exact number. hmmmmmmm

Why is that funny? That was the number being bandied about.

 

[IanC]

however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.

I'm sure it was measured, and they should have explicitly said what it was. It seems that they probably fed it 7% which is higher than the atmosphere in density, but only equivalent to only about 500 feet in altitude. So it's not all that much for the purposes they were after - a demo.

The Myth busters brought in measuring devices for some reason. CO2 was being measured somewhere and it was decreasing. Luke what would happen in a non airtight box after it received a bolus of additional CO2. There wasn't any mention of constructing controls with no CO2 therefore I think we can assume the control was at standard CO2 concentration and the CO2 box was increased, apparently in the vicinity of 200 times.

Using CO2 which has been doubled at least seven times to get 1C increase doesn't leave me impressed actually.

You have no basis for any assumption about leakage. Since the box was heating up and increasing internal pressure, any leakage would be out to the room not into the box. Outward leakage would preserve the percentage of the gases inside the box.

As I said many times the 7% CO2 is only equivalent to around 500 feet of atmosphere. To me the experiment was a demonstration that backscatter can have an effect of "blanketing". You are trying to make it more than it was intended.

The relevant measurement is 200x CO2. It does not matter what the start and end points are, only the doublings. The increase in pressure due to thermal expansion was not evident in the video therefore I am reasonably certain that leakage and transfer were taking place as evidenced by the downward trend over time on the measuring equipment.

 

[jc456]

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.

Thanks, that makes me honest. I only used 7% so the current argument wouldn't happen. It seems that I was right in predicting that.

it is truly funny that you missed that and just happened to pick that exact number. hmmmmmmm

Why is that funny? That was the number being bandied about.

I didn't think it was out the first time you posted it.

 

[Wuwei]

The relevant measurement is 200x CO2. It does not matter what the start and end points are, only the doublings. The increase in pressure due to thermal expansion was not evident in the video therefore I am reasonably certain that leakage and transfer were taking place as evidenced by the downward trend over time on the measuring equipment.

I think we have a disconnect.
I don't know what you mean by start and end point. You mean of the experiment?
What was being doubled? I presume you mean density of CO2, but it still doesn't make sense to me what you are referring to.
An increase in pressure would not be visible in the video. It will happen because gases expand under heat and cause leakage out of the box. What mechanism would cause the mixture to change?
What makes you think there was a downward trend during the experiment. That glimpse of a piece of paper? Who knows what that was for. Maybe a calibration run? Maybe the director wanted something interesting to show rather than a straight line? Who knows?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth and criticize them. I simply don't understand your points.

 

[Wuwei]

I didn't think it was out the first time you posted it.

I think it was. If you want to skim through this thread and find you are right, I will cede to you.

 

[IanC]

The relevant measurement is 200x CO2. It does not matter what the start and end points are, only the doublings. The increase in pressure due to thermal expansion was not evident in the video therefore I am reasonably certain that leakage and transfer were taking place as evidenced by the downward trend over time on the measuring equipment.

I think we have a disconnect.
I don't know what you mean by start and end point. You mean of the experiment?
What was being doubled? I presume you mean density of CO2, but it still doesn't make sense to me what you are referring to.
An increase in pressure would not be visible in the video. It will happen because gases expand under heat and cause leakage out of the box. What mechanism would cause the mixture to change?
What makes you think there was a downward trend during the experiment. That glimpse of a piece of paper? Who knows what that was for. Maybe a calibration run? Maybe the director wanted something interesting to show rather than a straight line? Who knows?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth and criticize them. I simply don't understand your points.

Sorry if my start and end point comment was confusing. It is the relative change in CO2 that counts. 10 vs 2000, 100 vs 20,000, or 400 vs 80,000. All involve doubling CO2 7+ times.

The experiment didn't show puffed out plastic sides to indicate air tight.

The CO2 monitor was shown twice. Both instances showed decreases, and there was a larger decrease between the first and second appearance. Whatever it was measuring was constantly decreasing. If it was not the experiment itself, what was it?

 

[jc456]

I didn't think it was out the first time you posted it.

I think it was. If you want to skim through this thread and find you are right, I will cede to you.

doesn't matter, was just the answer to your question. i originally thought you pulled it out of thin air. if not, oh well. It was funny at the time.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry if my start and end point comment was confusing. It is the relative change in CO2 that counts. 10 vs 2000, 100 vs 20,000, or 400 vs 80,000. All involve doubling CO2 7+ times.

I suppose so, but all I assume is that the one box had 7% CO2 and the control had .04%, which would be indistinguishable from 0% in this experiment. So the control is effectively zero.

The experiment didn't show puffed out plastic sides to indicate air tight.

Maybe I was being too terse. The increased temperature in the boxes would cause the air to either expand in volume or to increase in pressure or both, because of the ideal gas law,

Pressure x volume = nR x Temperature.

My assumption is that the box was leaky so the gas would expand and leak out of cracks. The sides wouldn't bow. If the air leaks out, the relative ratio of CO2 to air would remain invariant inside the box. The outside air does not leak into the box which is good otherwise the CO2 would be diluted.

The CO2 monitor was shown twice. Both instances showed decreases, and there was a larger decrease between the first and second appearance. Whatever it was measuring was constantly decreasing. If it was not the experiment itself, what was it?

OK. I had to go back and look at the video. There was a shot of a monitor at 1:31 that looked like a spectrogram, another at 1:34 that was chaotic, and another at 1:36. That showed a clear 7.351% as a number which seemed to be a title of the graph. Why would that be so clearly spelled out if it were an axis of the graph. To me it implied the axes were something else.

The horizontal axis was labeled, 9,950 10,000 10,050 etc. It did not start from zero.

There is no reason to assume that the vertical axis started from zero either. The legend seemed to be truncated because the blurry numbers did not seem to be complete.

In the same shot at 1:36 there is a partial graph that is increasing. At 1:39 we see that it's the same shot of the upper part of the monitor. It is clearly increasing. The title is CH4 = 8.118 ppm.

Because of the ambiguity of the graphs, the zero points, CO2 graph decreasing and the methane graph increasing I do not draw any conclusions from them. I don't see how anyone possibly can even reliably guess.

 

[IanC]

I haven't looked at the video in months but I know it showed the CO2 level twice. The first time long enough to see the numbers going down, the second time with a number lower than the first appearance.

If you are arguing that their experiment is crap, I agree with you. If you are arguing that the instrument measuring CO2 was not showing deceasing values I disagree with you.

 

[Wuwei]

I haven't looked at the video in months but I know it showed the CO2 level twice. The first time long enough to see the numbers going down, the second time with a number lower than the first appearance.

If you are arguing that their experiment is crap, I agree with you. If you are arguing that the instrument measuring CO2 was not showing deceasing values I disagree with you.

Perhaps it would be wiser to look at the graphs again and keep the graphs open while you read my post. Then your observations would more interesting. My post should have made no sense to you if you didn't have the graphs in front of you rather than a vague vision in your mind. Note that one graph went up and the other went down. Note the graph titles and the ambiguity of the axis grid values. Please tell me what you see as the grid labeled values, both horizontal and vertical.

The experiment was not crap but successfully demonstrated that CO2 and CH4 form a sort of "blanketing" effect. That is they are GHGs. It did not show all the vagaries of atmospheric physics nor was it expected to.

 

[IanC]

Did the CO2 number not drop on the screen the first time it was shown, and was the number not lower still when they cut back to it? That's what I distinctly remember.

If you are saying that using 200x the CO2, 7+ doubling, and possibly more, is indicative of a change of 120 ppm in the range of 400 ppm then I call bullshit. It reminds me of a peer reviewed paper that blamed CO2 for obesity using two data points, 400 ppm and 10,000 ppm, with no intermediate data.

 

[Wuwei]

Did the CO2 number not drop on the screen the first time it was shown, and was the number not lower still when they cut back to it? That's what I distinctly remember.

If you are saying that using 200x the CO2, 7+ doubling, and possibly more, is indicative of a change of 120 ppm in the range of 400 ppm then I call bullshit. It reminds me of a peer reviewed paper that blamed CO2 for obesity using two data points, 400 ppm and 10,000 ppm, with no intermediate data.

Where did I say that? Let me tell you again. The experiment did not show anything quantitative about atmospheric physics. Let me quote myself:

[the experiment] successfully demonstrated that CO2 and CH4 form a sort of "blanketing" effect. That is they are GHGs. It did not show all the vagaries of atmospheric physics nor was it expected to.

The experiment showed that boxes with the two GHGs got about 1 deg C hotter than the two boxes without. Do you disagree?

 

[IanC]

It is a big stretch to compare a 40% increase to a 20,000% increase.

Why didn't they produce an experiment with a 100% increase, one doubling? I can tell you why. They wouldn't have got a noticeable result.

 

[Wuwei]

It is a big stretch to compare a 40% increase to a 20,000% increase.

Why didn't they produce an experiment with a 100% increase, one doubling? I can tell you why. They wouldn't have got a noticeable result.

Yeah, thats probably right with an experiment so small compared to the hundred miles of atmosphere. At least they showed what GHGs do.