The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

Discussion in 'Environment' started by daveman, Jan 15, 2012.

  1. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    ...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

    Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

    Tyndall (1861)

    De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.
    Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

    He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

    Now let's look at this, from the site's author:
    I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​
    In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,677
    It's not like those experiments haven't been repeated over the years using moden equipment with the same results. The bottom line is that GHGs are known to absorb IR and effect the rate at whch it is emitted back to space. More GHGs, slower rate, bottom line!
     
  3. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    Have they been repeated? Whenever anyone asks for an experiment, they all point to Tyndall's.
     
  4. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,302
    Thanks Received:
    2,923
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,279
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,948
    Thanks Received:
    8,101
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,470

    Spitting in the ocean causes sea level to rise. Does that mean we need to pass laws against people spitting on public beaches or there will be catastrophic flooding?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2012
  6. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    [​IMG]

    "I was watching inconvenient truth the other day and theres the bit where it shows the sea level rising really high and flooding most of the world. Well i live near the sea, and don’t want to drown, so i got to thinking. Maybe if we lower the sea level a bit, when the water level rises then it won’t rise high enough to flood.
    Anyway, heres the plan. Everyone who can should take a bucket of sea water and pour it down the sink. If lots of people put the effort in, we could lower the sea level substantially and create a better world for our children to live"
     
  7. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    Boy, the cultists sure are avoiding this thread, aren't they?
     
  8. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Actually, konradv, the satellite record shows precisely the opposite. Satellites measure no difference in outgoing LW radiation since the 1970's in spite of greatly increased atmospheric CO2.

    Haven't you read the surgeon general's latest warnings concerning the fact that drinking the kookaid severely diminishes one's critical thinking ability and leaves them totally at the mercy of the first hoaxter who comes along?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,948
    Thanks Received:
    8,101
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,470

    Isn't that how Obama's stimulus scheme was supposed to work?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2012
  10. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,626
    Thanks Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,419
    So another liar posts lies. How surprising.


    Letters to Nature
    Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001


    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
    John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

    1.Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
    Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: j.harries@ic.ac.uk).


    The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
     

Share This Page