The Challenge of Climate Change...

[Stryder50]

I'm afraid it is volcanism's CO2 output that is negligible.

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year.

www.climate.gov

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.​

Except I didn't say anything about the source of CO2 being at issue, rather the disinformation that CO2 itself is significant factor. It's not even a minor factor.

Unless you can show-demonstrate (such as via laboratory experiments) how one molecule three degrees warm than adjacent 2,499 molecules can transfer any heat beyond 0.000000x degrees to them, CO2 as a cause of Global Warming, or Atmosphere Warming does not happen!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Except I didn't say anything about the source of CO2 being at issue, rather the disinformation that CO2 itself is significant factor. It's not even a minor factor.

Unless you can show-demonstrate (such as via laboratory experiments) how one molecule three degrees warm than adjacent 2,499 molecules can transfer any heat beyond 0.000000x degrees to them, CO2 as a cause of Global Warming, or Atmosphere Warming does not happen!

It's called the Greenhouse Effect for a reason. Think about it..

 

[Stryder50]

It's called the Greenhouse Effect for a reason. Think about it..

The reason it is called "the Greenhouse Effect" is manipulate those whom are ignorant and don't know or understand much about science with a simple, but inaccurate analogy.
Try answering the question by showing any laboratory or other documented test that has shown the effect of one part transfering same amount of 'heat' it has to the other 2,499 parts.
Explain how "the Greenhouse Effect" didn't work in these examples of much higher temperatures compared to much lower CO2;

 

[EMH]

the is no evidence to support that temperatures are the result of CO2 levels. Often the opposite, CO2 is influenced by temperatures since such is an indicator the flora and fauna that could be supported on this planet.

Completely correct.

So what does cause Earth climate change, since Co2 has nothing to do with it?

Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland and trees and moose north of Arctic Circle in Alaska?

What caused Greenland to freeze while North America thawed?

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?

 

[Crick]

Except I didn't say anything about the source of CO2 being at issue, rather the disinformation that CO2 itself is significant factor. It's not even a minor factor.

Unless you can show-demonstrate (such as via laboratory experiments) how one molecule three degrees warm than adjacent 2,499 molecules can transfer any heat beyond 0.000000x degrees to them, CO2 as a cause of Global Warming, or Atmosphere Warming does not happen!

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsos.192075

2D: Greenhouse Gas Lab

Part D: Greenhouse Gas Lab The activity shown here was adapted from the USGS lab: Greenhouse Gases, March 2011 In the previous lab, you read about greenhouse gases and used computer models to investigate the ...

serc.carleton.edu

https://oceanografia.ufes.br/sites/oceanografia.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/experiment-co2-pressao.pdf

Modelling the greenhouse effect

Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.

edu.rsc.org

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/Bernd-BlumeExperiments.pdf

 

[jc456]

280 climate scientists in your link. Even then, the likes of Michael Schlesinger is dead.

So is that a complete list because Alarmists claim there's thousands of scientists that agree on man made climate change?

Also, where's Michael Shellenberger in that list, Obama listened to him and pumped billions into renewables? Oh, I know, because Shellenberger now champions nuclear, so that's him defunded and off the list.

No warmer In here came name one climate scientist!

 

[Grumblenuts]

No warmer In here came name climate scientist!

Duheee!

 

[Grumblenuts]

The reason it is called "the Greenhouse Effect" is manipulate those whom are ignorant and don't know or understand much about science with a simple, but inaccurate analogy.

No, that would be you desperately attempting to compare apples with oranges. The atmosphere is not a lab experiment. Make up your mind. Apply thermodynamics to an obviously open (leaky) heat system or try to control the inputs and outputs better in a lab setting. You can't have it both ways.

 

[jc456]

No, that would be you desperately attempting to compare apples with oranges. The atmosphere is not a lab experiment. Make up your mind. Apply thermodynamics to an obviously open (leaky) heat system or try to control the inputs and outputs better in a lab setting. You can't have it both ways.

How hot is co2?

 

[Stryder50]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsos.192075

2D: Greenhouse Gas Lab

Part D: Greenhouse Gas Lab The activity shown here was adapted from the USGS lab: Greenhouse Gases, March 2011 In the previous lab, you read about greenhouse gases and used computer models to investigate the ...

serc.carleton.edu

https://oceanografia.ufes.br/sites/oceanografia.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/experiment-co2-pressao.pdf

Modelling the greenhouse effect

Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.

edu.rsc.org

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/Bernd-BlumeExperiments.pdf

Thanks for proving my point, in a way.
You don't know or understand science, or the type of lab test I was referring to, or both.
We'll start with the deficientcies of these five "lab tests" in this post.
Then in the next post I'll repeat what would be a valid lab test.

These two are basically two different articles about the same test.
Quote: "The balloon was filled with either air or CO2."
While they show the heat retention of "air"* versus CO2, they fail to prove the critical issue. Can the heat retained by CO2 transfer to the air WITH IT in the same container!
*- Assumes that the "air" has same percent composition of the atmosphere;

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.192075

https://oceanografia.ufes.br/sites/oceanografia.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/experiment-co2-pressao.pdf

These both FAIL!

Next is this, which again fails because it measures parts of the atmosphere separately rather than in a nature mix;
Quote: "students will have one bottle into which one of the gases (regular air, water saturated air, CO2 ) has been placed."

2D: Greenhouse Gas Lab

Part D: Greenhouse Gas Lab The activity shown here was adapted from the USGS lab: Greenhouse Gases, March 2011 In the previous lab, you read about greenhouse gases and used computer models to investigate the ...

serc.carleton.edu

FAILS!

Next, this fails also for the same reason. Measuring air and CO2 separately, not in a combined mix.
QUOTE: "The demonstration includes two parts. In the first, students observe a model of the greenhouse effect in a greenhouse using transparent bottles containing air. In the second, they learn about the role of carbon dioxide by comparing the effects in two separate vessels containing air and carbon dioxide respectively."

Modelling the greenhouse effect

Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.

edu.rsc.org

FAILS!

Next (and final of the five links) also fails because of the same reason. Using CO2 outside of the rest of the air/atmosphere. While interesting in showing the characteristics of CO2, it fails to show how CO2 transfers it's heat level to the surrounding atmosphere it is within. In none of the twelve "tests" is there 0.04% of CO2 within the 99.96% of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, & Misc.

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/Bernd-BlumeExperiments.pdf

FAILS!

 

[Stryder50]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsos.192075

2D: Greenhouse Gas Lab

Part D: Greenhouse Gas Lab The activity shown here was adapted from the USGS lab: Greenhouse Gases, March 2011 In the previous lab, you read about greenhouse gases and used computer models to investigate the ...

serc.carleton.edu

https://oceanografia.ufes.br/sites/oceanografia.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/experiment-co2-pressao.pdf

Modelling the greenhouse effect

Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.

edu.rsc.org

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/Bernd-BlumeExperiments.pdf

In the previous post we have seen how these links~experiments do not show the real mechanism essential for "greenhouse gas" effect upon the atmosphere.
Before describing how to test the impact of CO2 heat retention being TRANSFERRED to the rest of the atmosphere it is within, a couple quick data items for reference;

Major constituents of dry air, by mole fraction[8]

Gas	Mole fraction(A)
Name	Formula	in ppm(B)	in %
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
notes: (A) Mole fraction is sometimes referred to as volume fraction; these are identical for an ideal gas only. (B) ppm: parts per million by molecular count The total ppm above adds up to more than 1 million (currently 83.43 above it) due to experimental error. (C) The concentration of CO2 has been increasing in recent decades (D) Water vapor is about 0.25% by mass over full atmosphere (E) Water vapor varies significantly locally[11]
Nitrogen​	N2	780,840	78.084
Oxygen​	O2	209,460	20.946
Argon​	Ar	9,340	0.9340
Carbon dioxide (April 2022)(C)[13]​	CO2	417	0.0417
Neon​	Ne	18.18	0.001818
Helium​	He	5.24	0.000524
Methane​	CH4	1.87	0.000187
Krypton​	Kr	1.14	0.000114
Water vapor(D)​	H2O	0–30,000(D)	0–3%(E)

 

[Woodznutz]

Thanks for proving my point, in a way.
You don't know or understand science, or the type of lab test I was referring to, or both.
We'll start with the deficientcies of these five "lab tests" in this post.
Then in the next post I'll repeat what would be a valid lab test.

These two are basically two different articles about the same test.
Quote: "The balloon was filled with either air or CO2."
While they show the heat retention of "air"* versus CO2, they fail to prove the critical issue. Can the heat retained by CO2 transfer to the air WITH IT in the same container!
*- Assumes that the "air" has same percent composition of the atmosphere;

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.192075

https://oceanografia.ufes.br/sites/oceanografia.ufes.br/files/field/anexo/experiment-co2-pressao.pdf

These both FAIL!

Next is this, which again fails because it measures parts of the atmosphere separately rather than in a nature mix;
Quote: "students will have one bottle into which one of the gases (regular air, water saturated air, CO2 ) has been placed."

2D: Greenhouse Gas Lab

Part D: Greenhouse Gas Lab The activity shown here was adapted from the USGS lab: Greenhouse Gases, March 2011 In the previous lab, you read about greenhouse gases and used computer models to investigate the ...

serc.carleton.edu

FAILS!

Next, this fails also for the same reason. Measuring air and CO2 separately, not in a combined mix.
QUOTE: "The demonstration includes two parts. In the first, students observe a model of the greenhouse effect in a greenhouse using transparent bottles containing air. In the second, they learn about the role of carbon dioxide by comparing the effects in two separate vessels containing air and carbon dioxide respectively."

Modelling the greenhouse effect

Use this demonstration to illustrate the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Includes kit list and safety instructions.

edu.rsc.org

FAILS!

Next (and final of the five links) also fails because of the same reason. Using CO2 outside of the rest of the air/atmosphere. While interesting in showing the characteristics of CO2, it fails to show how CO2 transfers it's heat level to the surrounding atmosphere it is within. In none of the twelve "tests" is there 0.04% of CO2 within the 99.96% of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, & Misc.

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/Bernd-BlumeExperiments.pdf

FAILS!

So, a real test would be one container of air having 2.5 percent Co2 and another with 4.5 percent Co2, placed in the sun and the temperature of each taken?

 

[Stryder50]

There are two ways to test/demonstrate if the heat that CO2(0.04%) retains can transfer to and heat the rest of the atmosphere(99.96%).
1) Actual in a laboratory test due to apparatus needed.
In an airtight and insulated seal-able container, fill it to 99.96% capacity with that atmosphere mix, minus the CO2 and have it at 70degrees F.
Through a vent, insert the 0.04% of CO2 at 75 degrees F.
Record if the 100% atmosphere mix within the container has increased beyond 70 degrees F., and how much.

2) At home or in the classroom 'model' test. Model because we are using only water to simulate the atmosphere so we won't have the varied properties in actual atmosphere interacting to affect results.
Take an empty 2Liter soda bottle, and fill it with 2liters(2,000 milliliters) of water at 70 degrees F.
Note that with CO2 ratio to rest of atmosphere being 1/2,500, we are working with 80% of the 2,500 in form of the 2,000 milliliters of warm water. 80% of that 1/2,500 ratio.
Corresponding ratio of the 1 part CO2 at 80% will be just under 1 milliliter (0.8 ml). Easiest way to replicate will be to use one quarter-teaspoon measure from kitchen measuring set, filled with water heated to 75 degrees F. ~ yes it is actually about 1.25 ml in the in that quarter-teaspoon, but will not effect results.
Add the quarter-teaspoon of water at 75 degrees to the bottle with water at 70 degrees and notice/record the temperature increase within the bottle.

In both experiments you will need to use temprature measuring device that can measure about one thousandth degree F of change, but even that may not show a measurable result.

These both show that CO2 can not heat the rest of the atmosphere it is part of, therefore key foundation of ACC/AGW is false.

 

[Stryder50]

So, a real test would be one container of air having 2.5 percent Co2 and another with 4.5 percent Co2, placed in the sun and the temperature of each taken?

No!
It will be the one in my post after yours which measures CO2 influence WITHIN a similar atmosphere condition to the real world.

 

[Woodznutz]

No!
It will be the one in my post after yours which measures CO2 influence WITHIN a similar atmosphere condition to the real world.

Just make mine bigger, maybe two large greenhouses. Allow outside air in, then add more Co2 to one and measure the temperatures after a certain period.

 

[Stryder50]

Note that in the chart above that where CO2 is about 0.0417 ppm (parts per million) of the atmosphere, the other greenhouse gas of "concern", methane, is about 0.000187 ppm.

 

[Crick]

There are two ways to test/demonstrate if the heat that CO2(0.04%) retains can transfer to and heat the rest of the atmosphere(99.96%).
1) Actual in a laboratory test due to apparatus needed.
In an airtight and insulated seal-able container, fill it to 99.96% capacity with that atmosphere mix, minus the CO2 and have it at 70degrees F.
Through a vent, insert the 0.04% of CO2 at 75 degrees F.
Record if the 100% atmosphere mix within the container has increased beyond 70 degrees F., and how much.

The Earth, which has averaged less than half that amount of added CO2 over the pertinent span, has taken 150 years to increase temperature by 1.1C. Let's say you run your test for 24 hours. We would expect to see something less than 0.55C / (365 days/yr x 150 yrs) or 0.000010045C. The changes it will experience from exposure to ambient temperature changes will exceed that by several orders of magnitude.

2) At home or in the classroom 'model' test. Model because we are using only water to simulate the atmosphere so we won't have the varied properties in actual atmosphere interacting to affect results.
Take an empty 2Liter soda bottle, and fill it with 2liters(2,000 milliliters) of water at 70 degrees F.
Note that with CO2 ratio to rest of atmosphere being 1/2,500, we are working with 80% of the 2,500 in form of the 2,000 milliliters of warm water. 80% of that 1/2,500 ratio.
Corresponding ratio of the 1 part CO2 at 80% will be just under 1 milliliter (0.8 ml). Easiest way to replicate will be to use one quarter-teaspoon measure from kitchen measuring set, filled with water heated to 75 degrees F. ~ yes it is actually about 1.25 ml in the in that quarter-teaspoon, but will not effect results.
Add the quarter-teaspoon of water at 75 degrees to the bottle with water at 70 degrees and notice/record the temperature increase within the bottle.

In both experiments you will need to use temprature measuring device that can measure about one thousandth degree F of change, but even that may not show a measurable result.

These both show that CO2 can not heat the rest of the atmosphere it is part of, therefore key foundation of ACC/AGW is false.

There are a whole lot of people here on your side of this argument who will talk to you about how far IR gets through water. You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Stryder50]

The Earth, which has averaged less than half that amount of added CO2 over the pertinent span, has taken 150 years to increase temperature by 1.1C. Let's say you run your test for 24 hours. We would expect to see something less than 0.55C / (365 days/yr x 150 yrs) or 0.000010045C. The changes it will experience from exposure to ambient temperature changes will exceed that by several orders of magnitude.

There are a whole lot of people here on your side of this argument who will talk to you about how far IR gets through water. You're a fucking idiot.

That short span you go by shows coincidence, not cause. Looking at data over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years there is no sign of linkage between CO2 level and the temperature of the atmosphere. Other than hint that rising temperatures might lead to a rise in CO2 (but not always per the charts of data available). I showed the relevant charts in an earlier post.

BTW, 280ppm at the start of your "span" versus 417+/- ppm now is not "half", but closer to 3/4s. Again you show you can't do basic math. (to be "half" the CO2 would need to be at 560ppm)

The issue is not how far the IR gets, but if that is enough IR(measure of energy) to also heat the other 99.96% of the atmosphere as it does that 0.04%=one part of CO2.

The issue isn't if CO2 retains (actually slows transfer time) heat in a few portions of the IR spectrum, but if that IR it has can also heat everything else.

The claim of you religious zealots of ACC/AGW is that the heat CO2 retains is transfered to the REST of the atmosphere's composition. Which is not PROVEN!

You are the fucking idiot!

 

[Grumblenuts]

The claim of you religious zealots of ACC/AGW is that the heat CO2 retains is transfered to the REST of the atmosphere's composition.

That's lovely. Now all you need do is quote one of us "religious zealots of ACC/AGW" claiming exactly that:

the heat CO2 retains is transfered to the REST of the atmosphere's composition.

..bad spelling optional.
{Hint: you're barking entirely up the wrong tree.}

 

[Woodznutz]

That short span you go by shows coincidence, not cause. Looking at data over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years there is no sign of linkage between CO2 level and the temperature of the atmosphere. Other than hint that rising temperatures might lead to a rise in CO2 (but not always per the charts of data available). I showed the relevant charts in an earlier post.

BTW, 280ppm at the start of your "span" versus 417+/- ppm now is not "half", but closer to 3/4s. Again you show you can't do basic math. (to be "half" the CO2 would need to be at 560ppm)

The issue is not how far the IR gets, but if that is enough IR(measure of energy) to also heat the other 99.96% of the atmosphere as it does that 0.04%=one part of CO2.

The issue isn't if CO2 retains (actually slows transfer time) heat in a few portions of the IR spectrum, but if that IR it has can also heat everything else.

The claim of you religious zealots of ACC/AGW is that the heat CO2 retains is transfered to the REST of the atmosphere's composition. Which is not PROVEN!

You are the fucking idiot!

Why would Co2 need to transfer its heat to the rest of the atmosphere in order to increase the temperature of the atmosphere? If you added some black rocks to a box of white rocks would the black rocks have to transfer their heat to the white ones in order for the whole thing to heat up?