CO2 Experiments posted here

[CrusaderFrank]

So, 120 PPM causes a .5 degree increase and/or decrease?

Based on what...Peer reviewed Consensus of Mann's tree rings?

 

[jc456]

The pair of you could easily have been cast for Dumb and Dumberer To. WTF do you THINK the goal of reduced GHG emissions would be besides reduced GHG levels in our atmosphere? And since you fail to answer my request for clarification, I will conclude as I suspected when you asked that you never actually had any desire to know anything.

So technically and simply put, you have no answer right?

 

[Crick]

JC456 and KOSH

How are these data measured?

What do these data tell you will happen to sunshine entering the Earth's atmosphere?

 

[jc456]

JC456 and KOSH

How are these data measured?

What do these data tell you will happen to sunshine entering the Earth's atmosphere?

I'll tell you what, you answer my question first, then let's address your graph.

What is the temperature at 120 PPM of CO2 and 280 PPM? What if you increase it by 10 PPM or 40 PPM what is that increase?

 

[jc456]

Your question is meaningless and you lack the intellect or the training to understand the explanation. It has something to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The simple version is that you're an ignorant jackass and every time I've tried to actually explain to you what goes on in the world, I get exactly the same results were I to refuse to give you the sweat off my ass.

I didn't ask you to explain jack to me. I asked you to supply the expirement that shows 120PPM of CO2 actually increases temperature. You failed. That's on you sir.

BTW, I don't think me asking you a question deserves the potty mouth replies. You show you have issues, and that means your inability to provide factual information is finally bothering you.........Winning

 

[Kosh]

JC456 and KOSH

How are these data measured?

What do these data tell you will happen to sunshine entering the Earth's atmosphere?

A bunk chart that proves what?

That you and your religion are wrong?

Do you even understand what you posted?

 

[Kosh]

Your question is meaningless and you lack the intellect or the training to understand the explanation. It has something to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The simple version is that you're an ignorant jackass and every time I've tried to actually explain to you what goes on in the world, I get exactly the same results were I to refuse to give you the sweat off my ass.

Once again the AGW religious scriptures trump real science.

Another loss for those that hate real science. More proof that the AGW religion hates real science and will do all they can to squash it.

 

[jc456]

Your question is meaningless and you lack the intellect or the training to understand the explanation. It has something to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The simple version is that you're an ignorant jackass and every time I've tried to actually explain to you what goes on in the world, I get exactly the same results were I to refuse to give you the sweat off my ass.

Once again the AGW religious scriptures trump real science.

Another loss for those that hate real science. More proof that the AGW religion hates real science and will do all they can to squash it.

And cry about not having the proof.

 

[IanC]

WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.

It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.

 

[jc456]

WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.

It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.

According to the paper, Nye’s experiment

“demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects.“

 

[CrusaderFrank]

JC456 and KOSH

How are these data measured?

What do these data tell you will happen to sunshine entering the Earth's atmosphere?

Um, it's sunny?

Focus, McFly, Focus! Where's the experiment at varying 10PPM increments of CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[MENTION=48966]Crick[/MENTION]

Find the pattern

180, 220, 260, 300, 340, 380, 420

(I think it's a linear pattern too....)

 

[SSDD]

WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.

It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.

Not only gore/nye but all of that "green house in a jar sort of experiment"...They are demonstrating an entirely different sett of physics than the hypothetical greenhouse effect....as a control, the scientists used argon (roughly same density as CO2 but invisible to IR) and the argon heated up more than the CO2.

The experiments are bogus....including the myth busters experiment.

As an interesting sidebar...the IR lamps that people typically use in these experiments have an output of about 1000K and radiate at a wavelength of about 3 microns.... So you have an IR source radiating at 10,000 times the radiance of earth and thousands of times more CO2 in the containers than found in the atmosphere and the best they can do is manage a 1.5 to 2 degree temperature increase... If the experiment were meant to approximate the conditions found in the atmosphere, they would have to have a thermal radiator radiating at about 288K which would be the equivalent of putting a bottle of water at about 58 degrees which would radiate about 390 watts per square meter of 10.1 micron radiation. How much warming do you think they would get from that setup?....for that matter, how much warming do you think happens out in the real world if under rigged conditions they can only manage 2 degrees with a radiator putting out ten thousand times more radiation than the earth radiating thousands of times more CO2 than is found in the atmosphere. Do you really think that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1 degree?

 

[SSDD]

That's your response? If you'd really like to convince the readership here that you have the FAINTEST idea what you're talking about when you reject the greenhouse effect, reject relativity, reject quantum mechanics, reject fundamental thermodynamics... you'll need to try one **** of a lot harder than that.

Actually I don't but as you have proven before, you are willing to lie and make up arguments to rail against....

I don't accept unproven hypothesis as fact which you do and get very angry with anyone who doesn't.

At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?

 

[konradv]

At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?

It's further evidence your silliness that you imply that the earth would necessarily radiate at a single temperature and wavelength.

 

[SSDD]

At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?

It's further evidence your silliness that you imply that the earth would necessarily radiate at a single temperature and wavelength.

Climate science says that the earth radiates at a certain wattage per square meter and at a certain wavelength....that implies a certain temperature...or didn't you know that?

 

[konradv]

At what temperature does the earth radiate and at what wavelength?

It's further evidence your silliness that you imply that the earth would necessarily radiate at a single temperature and wavelength.

Climate science says that the earth radiates at a certain wattage per square meter and at a certain wavelength....that implies a certain temperature...or didn't you know that?

That's "average" NOT "certain". Your contention is ludicrous on the face of it.

 

[SSDD]

It's further evidence your silliness that you imply that the earth would necessarily radiate at a single temperature and wavelength.

Climate science says that the earth radiates at a certain wattage per square meter and at a certain wavelength....that implies a certain temperature...or didn't you know that?

That's "average" NOT "certain". Your contention is ludicrous on the face of it.

And yet, the whole AGW scam is based on an average temperature....either averages can be taken at face value or they can't...you can't pick the ones you like and reject the ones you don't. Which is it?

 

[westwall]

Climate science says that the earth radiates at a certain wattage per square meter and at a certain wavelength....that implies a certain temperature...or didn't you know that?

That's "average" NOT "certain". Your contention is ludicrous on the face of it.

And yet, the whole AGW scam is based on an average temperature....either averages can be taken at face value or they can't...you can't pick the ones you like and reject the ones you don't. Which is it?

But, but, but that's how they pull the wool over the eyes of the feeble minded. If they can't pick and choose the data points that most reinforce their fiction they would be lost. Every THINKING person knows that!

 

[SSDD]

That's "average" NOT "certain". Your contention is ludicrous on the face of it.

And yet, the whole AGW scam is based on an average temperature....either averages can be taken at face value or they can't...you can't pick the ones you like and reject the ones you don't. Which is it?

But, but, but that's how they pull the wool over the eyes of the feeble minded. If they can't pick and choose the data points that most reinforce their fiction they would be lost. Every THINKING person knows that!

To bad only skeptics think.