Science is falsifiable

[Crick]

You will have one filled with gas that does not absorb IR and one filled with one that does. And you think they'll be the same temperature? This hearkens back to Toddster's unanswered question to SSDD who claims that CO2 somehow absorbs IR radiation but does not get warmer: where does that energy go Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

 

[Wuwei]

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

A vent compromises the experiment. I'm not going to double post here. See the thread "No Evidence".

 

[Crick]

You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...

Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.

You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

And the one filled with CO2 will cool faster than the one with standard atmospheric composition. They seem to ignore that little fact...

BILLY BOB,

Are you in agreement with SSDD that CO2 does not warm from exposure to IR radiation? Are you in agreement with SSDD that the temperature difference is due to "the heat of compression" and the different densities of air and CO2?

PS: If it cools faster, won't it also warm faster?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...

Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.

You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

And the one filled with CO2 will cool faster than the one with standard atmospheric composition. They seem to ignore that little fact...

BILLY BOB,

Are you in agreement with SSDD that CO2 does not warm from exposure to IR radiation? Are you in agreement with SSDD that the temperature difference is due to "the heat of compression" and the different densities of air and CO2?

PS: If it cools faster, won't it also warm faster?

You are a moron.. You cant even understand the experiment was in DOWN WELLING SOLAR RADIATION, not LWIR..... And no it won't warm faster.

 

[Crick]

I did understand that the containers were being heated by direct solar radiation. As to warming faster you are incorrect. Absorption and emission are the precise processes simply executed in reverse order. The spectrum of absorption and emission for any given material are identical. For example:

So, if it cools faster, it will warm faster.

And you failed to answer any of the questions I posed you. Allow me to repeat them and augment:

1) Is it your position that CO2 will not increase its temperature from exposure to infrared radiation?
2) Is it your position that the temperature difference between the two containers is due to "the heat of compression" and the difference in the densities of CO2 and air?
(1.96 kg m^-3 vs 1.225 kg m^-3, resp)
3) Is it your position that this "heat of compression" is responsible for the difference between the Earth's actual temperature and the blackbody temperature calculated from the SB relationship?

 

[SSDD]

You will have one filled with gas that does not absorb IR and one filled with one that does. And you think they'll be the same temperature? This hearkens back to Toddster's unanswered question to SSDD who claims that CO2 somehow absorbs IR radiation but does not get warmer: where does that energy go Mr Atmospheric Physicist?

Do the experiment...vent the tops of the jars so the pressure remains the same within the jars and watch your claims be disproven right before your eyes...

 

[SSDD]

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

A vent compromises the experiment. I'm not going to double post here. See the thread "No Evidence".

A vent eliminates the heat of compression which invalidates the experiment.

 

[SSDD]

I did understand that the containers were being heated by direct solar radiation. As to warming faster you are incorrect. Absorption and emission are the precise processes simply executed in reverse order. The spectrum of absorption and emission for any given material are identical. For example:

View attachment 248918

So, if it cools faster, it will warm faster.

And you failed to answer any of the questions I posed you. Allow me to repeat them and augment:

1) Is it your position that CO2 will not increase its temperature from exposure to infrared radiation?
2) Is it your position that the temperature difference between the two containers is due to "the heat of compression" and the difference in the densities of CO2 and air?
(1.96 kg m^-3 vs 1.225 kg m^-3, resp)
3) Is it your position that this "heat of compression" is responsible for the difference between the Earth's actual temperature and the blackbody temperature calculated from the SB relationship?

\
Go find a grownup to help you put some CO2 in a jar with a thermometer and punch a hole in the top...then do the same with a jar of common air...watch the temperatures in the two jars remain the same...watch your belief be disproved...

 

[Wuwei]

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

A vent compromises the experiment. I'm not going to double post here. See the thread "No Evidence".

A vent eliminates the heat of compression which invalidates the experiment.

"Heat of compression" involves an outside mechanical force that reduces the volume of the gas. In an adiabatic process that will increase the temperature along with the pressure.

In short, you are confusing "heat due to compression" with pressure due to heat.

There is no "heat of compression" in Foote's experiment. Putting a vent in the cylinders compromises the experiment by letting unknown amounts of gases and energy to escape, creating lower densities within.

Of course the pressure increases. But it is not heat of compression. You have not invalidated Foote's experiment.

.

 

[SSDD]

Of course there is....vent the bottles...and don't fill up one bottle with water vapor and the two will track the same temperature...

 

[Wuwei]

Of course there is....vent the bottles...and don't fill up one bottle with water vapor and the two will track the same temperature...

Both bottles had the same amount of water. Both had time for vapor equilibrium. Both were heated the same.

 

[Crick]

Wuwei and I have posted links to experiments of this sort in No Evidence, both of which had vented containers and both showed more warming in CO2. Your argument, Same Shit, is eponymous.

 

[SSDD]

Of course there is....vent the bottles...and don't fill up one bottle with water vapor and the two will track the same temperature...

Both bottles had the same amount of water. Both had time for vapor equilibrium. Both were heated the same.

Right....one bottle just sitting, and the other bottle having water vapor manufactured as fast as frozen CO2 could manufacture it...The air inside that bottle was so supersaturated with water vapor that had you blown cold air across the bottle, you would have probably started a thunderstorm inside...

If you actually believe your statement, than you are even stupider than I thought...more evidence of how easily you are fooled..

 

[Crick]

You think dry ice produces water vapor? You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Crick]

Fog Formation Upon Dry Ice / Hot Water Contact
Chemistry Lecture Demonstration Facility - Demos
Fog Formation Upon Dry Ice / Hot Water Contact


Brief Description:

Pellets of dry ice, solid carbon dioxide, are dumped into a basin of nearly boiling water. A dense white cloud of fog first rises above the basin. As more fog is produced, it stops rising and flows over the rim of the basin and down to the table top.

Purpose/Goal:

Illustrates changes in state, density of a heavier than air gas, and how fog forms meteorologically.

Explanation of Experiment:
Fog forms when water vapor in the air condenses into tiny suspended droplets.
This condensation occurs when warm, humid air is cooled. The warm air over the hot water is nearly saturated with water vapor. This warm air is cooled by mixing it with the cold carbon dioxide gas that sublimes from dry ice. Initially the hot water heats the air above it making it less dense and causing the fog to rise. Eventually, the cold carbon dioxide cools the air to the point that it becomes more dense than the air around the basin, and the fog sinks.

Materials Preparation:

Prepare ca. 3 L nearly boiling water and a large quantity (ca. 100-500 g) of dry ice pellets. Handle dry ice with insulated gloves and store in an appropriate insulated container.

Presentation:

Wearing gloves, drop ca. 100-500 g of dry ice into a plastic basin containing ca. 3 L of nearly boiling water (hotter the better). Upon initial contact with the water, an eruption of fog results, followed by the formation of a blanket of fog cascading over the lab bench top and spreading on the floor in all directions. Explain that this is how film makers create fog in the movies, and how fog forms meteorologically.

Hazards:

Solid CO2, dry ice, has a temperature of -78.5 °C and can cause frostbite. Thermal protection in the form of gloves or a towel should be used when handling dry ice.

Disposal:

Solid CO2 should be allowed to sublime in a hood or other well-ventilated area. Water can be disposed of down the drain.

 

[Crick]

Here Is the Reason Why Dry Ice Makes Fog

The sudden drop in temperature causes water vapor in the air to condense into tiny droplets, forming fog.

 

[Crick]

How Does Dry Ice Work?

 

[Wuwei]

Right....one bottle just sitting, and the other bottle having water vapor manufactured as fast as frozen CO2 could manufacture it...The air inside that bottle was so supersaturated with water vapor that had you blown cold air across the bottle, you would have probably started a thunderstorm inside...

The air in the CO2 bottle was as low as 21.8 C near the beginning of the experiment. The temperature rose to 33.8 a half hour later. Everyone knows that cold air holds less water vapor than warmer air. So the CO2 bottle started out with less vapor than the air bottle. If you think the air in the CO2 bottle did not reach equilibrium in a half hour and had a higher vapor content after a half hour you will have to come up with a good reason.

.

 

[SSDD]

Fog Formation Upon Dry Ice / Hot Water Contact
Chemistry Lecture Demonstration Facility - Demos
Fog Formation Upon Dry Ice / Hot Water Contact


Brief Description:

Pellets of dry ice, solid carbon dioxide, are dumped into a basin of nearly boiling water. A dense white cloud of fog first rises above the basin. As more fog is produced, it stops rising and flows over the rim of the basin and down to the table top.

Purpose/Goal:

Illustrates changes in state, density of a heavier than air gas, and how fog forms meteorologically.

Explanation of Experiment:
Fog forms when water vapor in the air condenses into tiny suspended droplets.
This condensation occurs when warm, humid air is cooled. The warm air over the hot water is nearly saturated with water vapor. This warm air is cooled by mixing it with the cold carbon dioxide gas that sublimes from dry ice. Initially the hot water heats the air above it making it less dense and causing the fog to rise. Eventually, the cold carbon dioxide cools the air to the point that it becomes more dense than the air around the basin, and the fog sinks.

Materials Preparation:

Prepare ca. 3 L nearly boiling water and a large quantity (ca. 100-500 g) of dry ice pellets. Handle dry ice with insulated gloves and store in an appropriate insulated container.

Presentation:

Wearing gloves, drop ca. 100-500 g of dry ice into a plastic basin containing ca. 3 L of nearly boiling water (hotter the better). Upon initial contact with the water, an eruption of fog results, followed by the formation of a blanket of fog cascading over the lab bench top and spreading on the floor in all directions. Explain that this is how film makers create fog in the movies, and how fog forms meteorologically.

Hazards:

Solid CO2, dry ice, has a temperature of -78.5 °C and can cause frostbite. Thermal protection in the form of gloves or a towel should be used when handling dry ice.

Disposal:

Solid CO2 should be allowed to sublime in a hood or other well-ventilated area. Water can be disposed of down the drain.

You seem to be incapable of learning.....are you really that stupid?

I provided you a slow motion video of dry ice in water...it is clear that the bubbles coming up from the dry ice is already saturated with water vapor...The bubbles themselves are white...this indicates that the water vapor is forming under the water...

Here...again, look at about 13 seconds...it is pretty clear that the water vapor is already in the bubbles...



Here is a video of dry ice in isopropanol...note bubbles...but no fog...



engineer my ass.....dumb as a box of rocks...

 

[SSDD]

Right....one bottle just sitting, and the other bottle having water vapor manufactured as fast as frozen CO2 could manufacture it...The air inside that bottle was so supersaturated with water vapor that had you blown cold air across the bottle, you would have probably started a thunderstorm inside...

The air in the CO2 bottle was as low as 21.8 C near the beginning of the experiment. The temperature rose to 33.8 a half hour later. Everyone knows that cold air holds less water vapor than warmer air. So the CO2 bottle started out with less vapor than the air bottle. If you think the air in the CO2 bottle did not reach equilibrium in a half hour and had a higher vapor content after a half hour you will have to come up with a good reason.

.

I didn't see the interior of the bottle sweating...where do you suppose the vapor went? You are so easily fooled that it is ridiculous...and it is because you are wiling to be fooled...no one can really be that stupid except perhaps for the skidmark...he is genuinely stupid..