RSS shows NO RECORDS set in 2014

[Crick]

Billy Bob, do you agree with Frank's 'assessment' of these data? Do you believe the graph I posted has nothing to do with CO2 absorbing IR?

 

[IanC]

the warmist's side has produced videos purporting to show how CO2 increases warming in an enclosed area. most have been either faked (eg. Gore/Nye) or used exaggerated amounts of CO2 (eg. Mythbusters). we are still waiting for an experiment that shows warming from a realistic amount of extra CO2, perhaps a single doubling but preferably just 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

I am sure it has been done many times but the results were either feeble or non-existent, so no results were made public.

 

[Crick]

So you also are going to assume that Mythbusters and their named gas expert were lying when they clearly stated they were reproducing atmospheric conditions because of an unidentified, one-second shot of a gauge reading a higher value.

On a separate line, Ian, have you ever been involved with, or simply studied, physical modeling, such as wind tunnels? Are you familiar with the use of dimensionless variables in such testing?

 

[IanC]

So you also are going to assume that Mythbusters and their named gas expert were lying when they clearly stated they were reproducing atmospheric conditions because of an unidentified, one-second shot of a gauge reading a higher value.

On a separate line, Ian, have you ever been involved with, or simply studied, physical modeling, such as wind tunnels? Are you familiar with the use of dimensionless variables in such testing?

where did I say they were lying? they said their machines could measure accurately to a high degree of precision and you inferred that they were keeping CO2 levels in the atmospheric range but the actual machine reading part way through the experiment was at 3% or 7% and still declining at a steady pace. what was the original composition? who knows, they didnt tell us or show the readings. the decline on the portion of the CO2 readings shown in that accidental one second clip was more that the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!

hmmm..... I will take that last statement back until I check. it is still certainly right by an order of magnitude.

 

[Crick]

If you turn on the audio, you will hear them say that they are recreating actual atmospheric conditions. If you believe that is not the case, then you believe they lied when they said that.

The video in question is unidentified and nothing is visible in the surroundings that would tell you to what that instrument was connected or at what point in the experiment the video was made. The assertion that it represents the actual test conditions has been complete conjecture - wishful thinking - all along.

 

[IanC]

sorry for the low def

1:35 in, the CO2 reading is shown going from 7.351% to 7.348%, next cut is 7.325%. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion. were they doing other CO2 experiments at the same time as this one? it also doesnt say whether this was at the start, middle or end of the experiment but I would assume that when the 'Jamiies' fell over and the lids were raised that would put a large step jump into the readings.

the first decrease is only 30 ppm CO2. we do not know how fast it is decreasing because we only have two open ended points. likewise the difference between the first shown concentration and the last legible concentration is only 260 ppm.

I think this is pretty convincing that that the CO2 levels were much much higher than atmospheric conditions but I was wrong to state that the drop on camera was more than the total CO2 in our air. it was more than the increase since the industrial revolution though.

 

[Crick]

. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion.

That is most certainly NOT the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[Crick]

If you can't admit that the assertion this instrument video represent actual test conditions is a conjecture, you've become worrisomely disconnected from the truth.

 

[IanC]

. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion.

That is most certainly NOT the only reasonable conclusion.

hahahahaha... ok.....what was the machine measuring?

 

[jc456]

You've seen the lab work. Repeatedly. There is no point in granting you anything you ask for if you'll simply lie about it thereafter.

 

[jc456]

sorry for the low def

1:35 in, the CO2 reading is shown going from 7.351% to 7.348%, next cut is 7.325%. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion. were they doing other CO2 experiments at the same time as this one? it also doesnt say whether this was at the start, middle or end of the experiment but I would assume that when the 'Jamiies' fell over and the lids were raised that would put a large step jump into the readings.

the first decrease is only 30 ppm CO2. we do not know how fast it is decreasing because we only have two open ended points. likewise the difference between the first shown concentration and the last legible concentration is only 260 ppm.

I think this is pretty convincing that that the CO2 levels were much much higher than atmospheric conditions but I was wrong to state that the drop on camera was more than the total CO2 in our air. it was more than the increase since the industrial revolution though.

The piece that is missing is the actual % of gas breakdown in each of the chambers before they add any CO2 or methane. So, if they start with the air from just the surrounding environment, then there is already a concentration of CO2 levels in the boxes, since we know the levels are at 350 PPM today. Then they add 350PPM to the CO2 chamber which doubles the amount present. And that the CO2 chamber stayed just 1 degree above control through out. So, the question is, does any leak out after four hours? Since no one is actually monitoring what is in the chambers, this is busted. I have to believe that the CO2 escapes, and again, listen to what they state, they state the temperature stayed at one degree for four hours, 2:18 of the video. So, the experiment is busted since we don't know the actual amount of CO2 in any of the chambers at any time within the four hours. Busted!!!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

sorry for the low def

1:35 in, the CO2 reading is shown going from 7.351% to 7.348%, next cut is 7.325%. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion. were they doing other CO2 experiments at the same time as this one? it also doesnt say whether this was at the start, middle or end of the experiment but I would assume that when the 'Jamiies' fell over and the lids were raised that would put a large step jump into the readings.

the first decrease is only 30 ppm CO2. we do not know how fast it is decreasing because we only have two open ended points. likewise the difference between the first shown concentration and the last legible concentration is only 260 ppm.

I think this is pretty convincing that that the CO2 levels were much much higher than atmospheric conditions but I was wrong to state that the drop on camera was more than the total CO2 in our air. it was more than the increase since the industrial revolution though.

The piece that is missing is the actual % of gas breakdown in each of the chambers before they add any CO2 or methane. So, if they start with the air from just the surrounding environment, then there is already a concentration of CO2 levels in the boxes, since we know the levels are at 350 PPM today. Then they add 350PPM to the CO2 chamber which doubles the amount present. And that the CO2 chamber stayed just 1 degree above control through out. So, the question is, does any leak out after four hours? Since no one is actually monitoring what is in the chambers, this is busted. I have to believe that the CO2 escapes, and again, listen to what they state, they state the temperature stayed at one degree for four hours, 2:18 of the video. So, the experiment is busted since we don't know the actual amount of CO2 in any of the chambers at any time within the four hours. Busted!!!!!!

Scientific controls were totally missing. The Mythbusters video is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. There is no validation without controls.

 

[IanC]

. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion.

That is most certainly NOT the only reasonable conclusion.

hahahahaha... ok.....what was the machine measuring?

did I miss your reply? what was the machine measuring? if they had that machine there to measure CO2 in the boxes, why did they show a clip of it measuring something else? what has a CO2 concentration of 7% (and leaking) that they would try it out on?

the Mythbusters experiment could have been done so, so, so much better with very little extra effort. as it is the result is basically worthless.

 

[Crick]

. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion.

That is most certainly NOT the only reasonable conclusion.

hahahahaha... ok.....what was the machine measuring?

It cannot be told from the video. It can't even be said that it's connected to anything. If you can't accept that the video there is meaningless Ian, my disappointment in the objectivity of your intellect is going to be severe.

 

[Crick]

sorry for the low def

1:35 in, the CO2 reading is shown going from 7.351% to 7.348%, next cut is 7.325%. I think this shows that they were measuring something in real time that had a high concentration of CO2 but was leaking. I dont know if it was the CO2 box but it is the only reasonable conclusion. were they doing other CO2 experiments at the same time as this one? it also doesnt say whether this was at the start, middle or end of the experiment but I would assume that when the 'Jamiies' fell over and the lids were raised that would put a large step jump into the readings.

the first decrease is only 30 ppm CO2. we do not know how fast it is decreasing because we only have two open ended points. likewise the difference between the first shown concentration and the last legible concentration is only 260 ppm.

I think this is pretty convincing that that the CO2 levels were much much higher than atmospheric conditions but I was wrong to state that the drop on camera was more than the total CO2 in our air. it was more than the increase since the industrial revolution though.

The piece that is missing is the actual % of gas breakdown in each of the chambers before they add any CO2 or methane. So, if they start with the air from just the surrounding environment, then there is already a concentration of CO2 levels in the boxes, since we know the levels are at 350 PPM today. Then they add 350PPM to the CO2 chamber which doubles the amount present. And that the CO2 chamber stayed just 1 degree above control through out. So, the question is, does any leak out after four hours? Since no one is actually monitoring what is in the chambers, this is busted. I have to believe that the CO2 escapes, and again, listen to what they state, they state the temperature stayed at one degree for four hours, 2:18 of the video. So, the experiment is busted since we don't know the actual amount of CO2 in any of the chambers at any time within the four hours. Busted!!!!!!

Scientific controls were totally missing. The Mythbusters video is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. There is no validation without controls.

It was certainly no more than a demonstration and their failure to explicitly state the various gas concentrations was a serious lapse. Be that as it may, their statement that they were reproducing atmospheric concentrations tells me that the CO2 in the chambers was never pushed past 400 ppm. They stated outright (per my recollection) that they were putting methane at 18 ppb.

 

[IanC]

the video does not say how much of the gases they added. crick says they added an atmospheric range to each box. I dont know if that means he thinks the control boxes were made up with individual amounts of oxygen and nitrogen and argon so there would be no GHGs. surely he doesnt think a wisp of CO2 in a box raised the temp 1C. or perhaps he does.

Occam's Razor would seem to imply that the expensive machine was measuring 70, 000 ppm CO2, about 200 times the amount in air. and that is what caused the 1C rise.

 

[Crick]

It would not. But your wishful thinking does.

 

[Billy_Bob]

the video does not say how much of the gases they added. crick says they added an atmospheric range to each box. I dont know if that means he thinks the control boxes were made up with individual amounts of oxygen and nitrogen and argon so there would be no GHGs. surely he doesnt think a wisp of CO2 in a box raised the temp 1C. or perhaps he does.

Occam's Razor would seem to imply that the expensive machine was measuring 70, 000 ppm CO2, about 200 times the amount in air. and that is what caused the 1C rise.

That was the implication I took as well. 7% of atmosphere in the boxes is 70,000ppm. The experiment is a fraud or the amount of CO2 needed to gain a temperature rise was massive. IF that amount was necessary to create a temp rise just think how much would be needed in a convecting atmosphere which the boxes were not.

 

[Crick]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.