The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

[daveman]

...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.

 

[konradv]

...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.

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!

 

[daveman]

...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.

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!

Have they been repeated? Whenever anyone asks for an experiment, they all point to Tyndall's.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[bripat9643]

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!

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?

 

[daveman]

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!

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?

"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"

 

[daveman]

Boy, the cultists sure are avoiding this thread, aren't they?

 

[wirebender]

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!

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?

 

[bripat9643]

"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"

Isn't that how Obama's stimulus scheme was supposed to work?

 

[Old Rocks]

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!

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?

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: [email protected]).


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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now here is a look at what we presently understand concerning the absorbtion of energy by GHGs. From Harvard.

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Daveboy, were you not such a stupid ass, you would realize that one gives credit to the pioneers of a science when discussing the origins of theories. Thus, you cannot really discuss evolution without refering to Darwin. For AGW, Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius are the people that pioneered the science.

As for your oh so stupid insistance that all Tyndall did was show that GHGs blocked IR, do this little experiment. Put your thumb on a peice of steel. Swing a hammer, and bring down directly on your thumbnail. Now, did you notice the transfer of energy from the hammer to your thumb? When you block energy, there is an energy transfer.

 

[daveman]

"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"

Isn't that how Obama's stimulus scheme was supposed to work?

It'll solve global warming AND the economy!!

 

[daveman]

Now here is a look at what we presently understand concerning the absorbtion of energy by GHGs. From Harvard.

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

"According to current climate models, this observed temperature rise can be explained by increases in greenhouse gases."

Oh, the models they alter data to fit, instead of the other way around as science is supposed to work? Dismissed as useless.

Daveboy, were you not such a stupid ass, you would realize that one gives credit to the pioneers of a science when discussing the origins of theories. Thus, you cannot really discuss evolution without refering to Darwin. For AGW, Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius are the people that pioneered the science.

As for your oh so stupid insistance that all Tyndall did was show that GHGs blocked IR, do this little experiment. Put your thumb on a peice of steel. Swing a hammer, and bring down directly on your thumbnail. Now, did you notice the transfer of energy from the hammer to your thumb? When you block energy, there is an energy transfer.

You did the same experiment with your skull, didn't you?

Roxy, whenever I've asked you for proof, you trot out Tyndall's experiment -- that you never even read.

It doesn't prove what you say it proves. End of story.

 

[Old Rocks]

End of story is that you are to stupid to realize it says exactly that. GHGs block and absorb outgoing radiation, trapping it within the atmosphere. That is what Tyndall's experiment proved. And all the research from that time to this verify that.

 

[daveman]

End of story is that you are to stupid to realize it says exactly that. GHGs block and absorb outgoing radiation, trapping it within the atmosphere. That is what Tyndall's experiment proved. And all the research from that time to this verify that.

Tyndall's experiment did not prove what you say it does.

You've never even read it. You got your opinion handed to you from the high priests, and you repeat it as gospel.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tyndall started calling anyone who would listen to his exciting discovery!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

End of story is that you are to stupid to realize it says exactly that. GHGs block and absorb outgoing radiation, trapping it within the atmosphere. That is what Tyndall's experiment proved. And all the research from that time to this verify that.

Tyndall's experiment did not prove what you say it does.

You've never even read it. You got your opinion handed to you from the high priests, and you repeat it as gospel.

Dave shows the Village children his Old Rocks head

 

[wirebender]

So another liar posts lies. How surprising.

I don't lie rocks. I would call you a liar but frankly, I believe that you are just too damned stupid to know that you have been hoaxed. Here, have a look at the satellite records from the 70's and then 30 years later and you tell me where you see less LW radiation escaping into space.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006.

Learn something rocks.

 

[wirebender]

Now here is a look at what we presently understand concerning the absorbtion of energy by GHGs. From Harvard.

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

I don't see a thing there about CO2 having any capacity at all to retain heat in the atmosphere rocks. Where exactly do you believe any such thing is claimed there?

 

[Old Rocks]

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

We examine in this chapter the role played by atmospheric gases in controlling the temperature of the Earth. The main source of heat to the Earth is solar energy, which is transmitted from the Sun to the Earth by radiation and is converted to heat at the Earth's surface. To balance this input of solar radiation, the Earth itself emits radiation to space. Some of this terrestrial radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and radiated back to the Earth, resulting in the warming of the surface known as the greenhouse effect. As we will see, trapping of terrestrial radiation by naturally occurring greenhouse gases is essential for maintaining the Earth's surface temperature above the freezing point.



There is presently much concern that anthropogenic i ncreases in greenhouse gases could be inducing rapid surface warming of the Earth. The naturally occurring greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O show large increases over the past century due to human activity ( Figure 7-1 ). The increase of CO2 was discussed in chapter 6, and the increases of CH4 and N2O will be discussed in chapters 11 and 10 respectively. Additional greenhouse gases produced by the chemical industry, such as CFC-11, have also accumulated in the atmosphere over the past decades and added to the greenhouse effect ( Figure 7-1 ).

Of course this is just a Harvard physicist, and not a Bent all knowing internet poster stating what GHGs do, and how they do it.