CO2 Experiments posted here

[IanC]

Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.

For christ's sake grow up people. Find us some peer reviewed studies that support your rejection of the greenhouse effect. Without that, you just haven't got a leg to stand on. Period.

why dont you just come out and say that there are no visual experiments that show warming from a 120ppm CO2 increase? actually I should make that an increase from 280-400 ppm because the first increases from zero CO2 make more of an impact (and further increases from 400 will cause less of course).

it is not a big deal. although it is odd that it hasnt been done. why wouldnt the warmers like to jam it down the throats of the skeptics? why only fake experiments like Gore/Nye, or misrepresentations like the BBC one?

 

[JoeNormal]

Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.

For christ's sake grow up people. Find us some peer reviewed studies that support your rejection of the greenhouse effect. Without that, you just haven't got a leg to stand on. Period.

why dont you just come out and say that there are no visual experiments that show warming from a 120ppm CO2 increase? actually I should make that an increase from 280-400 ppm because the first increases from zero CO2 make more of an impact (and further increases from 400 will cause less of course).

it is not a big deal. although it is odd that it hasnt been done. why wouldnt the warmers like to jam it down the throats of the skeptics? why only fake experiments like Gore/Nye, or misrepresentations like the BBC one?

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

 

[boedicca]

So which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you think proves your point?

They both prove that CO2 experiments were posted here. Thus they both prove that several deniers here lie through their teeth.

Here's an experiment you can try at home!

In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.

 

[Crick]

How often, when discussing matters of science or public policy, do you find it necessary to urge your opponents to commit suicide?

 

[mamooth]

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

We do have the satellite measurements, which do show the outgoing longwave radiation squeezing down in the CO2 absorption band.

We also have the surface measurements, showing downward longwave radiation increasing.

Those are smoking guns. Nothing except AGW theory explains them. Hence, the deniers here all work hard to pretend such data doesn't exist. It's why they're called deniers.

 

[JoeNormal]

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

We do have the satellite measurements, which do show the outgoing longwave radiation squeezing down in the CO2 absorption band.

We also have the surface measurements, showing downward longwave radiation increasing.

Those are smoking guns. Nothing except AGW theory explains them. Hence, the deniers here all work hard to pretend such data doesn't exist. It's why they're called deniers.

Very true. My point is that most deniers hang their hat on an experiment that can't be done in a lab.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hello Dr. Scientist, Joe Crackpot here. Just wanted to impose my negligible scientific understanding upon your experiment...

Yeah. That's exactly how it went

Are you afraid of talking to people?

No, lay it on me brother. What do you have to say?

Just looked him up and called him to ask a few questions and he never returned the call or email.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.

For christ's sake grow up people. Find us some peer reviewed studies that support your rejection of the greenhouse effect. Without that, you just haven't got a leg to stand on. Period.

why dont you just come out and say that there are no visual experiments that show warming from a 120ppm CO2 increase? actually I should make that an increase from 280-400 ppm because the first increases from zero CO2 make more of an impact (and further increases from 400 will cause less of course).

it is not a big deal. although it is odd that it hasnt been done. why wouldnt the warmers like to jam it down the throats of the skeptics? why only fake experiments like Gore/Nye, or misrepresentations like the BBC one?

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

Uh huh.

Is that like saying the only way to replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang is with a Time Machine?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult says You can't test for a 120PPM increase in CO2 because you need a container:

a. Bigger than 25 meters
b. the size of the Earth
c. the size of the solar system
d. 25 miles high
e. Denier!!
f. All of the above

 

[JoeNormal]

why dont you just come out and say that there are no visual experiments that show warming from a 120ppm CO2 increase? actually I should make that an increase from 280-400 ppm because the first increases from zero CO2 make more of an impact (and further increases from 400 will cause less of course).

it is not a big deal. although it is odd that it hasnt been done. why wouldnt the warmers like to jam it down the throats of the skeptics? why only fake experiments like Gore/Nye, or misrepresentations like the BBC one?

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

Uh huh.

Is that like saying the only way to replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang is with a Time Machine?

I'm sure that if the Higgs Boson were politicized to the extent that global warming is, Fox News would claim that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

Uh huh.

Is that like saying the only way to replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang is with a Time Machine?

I'm sure that if the Higgs Boson were politicized to the extent that global warming is, Fox News would claim that.

^ real science. Can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang

^ Fake science. Can't control for a 120PPM difference in CO2 without asking for a container the size of the Solar System

 

[JoeNormal]

Uh huh.

Is that like saying the only way to replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang is with a Time Machine?

I'm sure that if the Higgs Boson were politicized to the extent that global warming is, Fox News would claim that.

^ real science. Can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang

^ Fake science. Can't control for a 120PPM difference in CO2 without asking for a container the size of the Solar System

No, what science can't do is make real world experiments simple enough that lay people can understand them. They seem to accept that they'll never understand how the Higgs Boson is predicted and then detected but somehow, they expect a simple enough explanation of CO2 concentration that their science fair mentalities can wrap their minds around.

 

[Crick]

I think the term "science fair mentality" is being way too generous

 

[IanC]

Gosh, the last time I heard that one I laughed so hard I kicked a slat out of my crib.

For christ's sake grow up people. Find us some peer reviewed studies that support your rejection of the greenhouse effect. Without that, you just haven't got a leg to stand on. Period.

why dont you just come out and say that there are no visual experiments that show warming from a 120ppm CO2 increase? actually I should make that an increase from 280-400 ppm because the first increases from zero CO2 make more of an impact (and further increases from 400 will cause less of course).

it is not a big deal. although it is odd that it hasnt been done. why wouldnt the warmers like to jam it down the throats of the skeptics? why only fake experiments like Gore/Nye, or misrepresentations like the BBC one?

You realize that at those concentrations, the containment vessel would have to be as long as the atmosphere is high - say 25 miles. And if it were laying on its side, it wouldn't accurately capture the density gradation so it has to be 25 miles high. Does that sound practical to ypu?

good grief! what are you guys babbling about now? if anything the size should be kept to a minimum to cut down on convection.

two quartz panes, standardized IR energy source, a recording digital thermometer, air with known amounts of CO2 and H2O. run each variation a half dozen times and plot up your results.

its not a big deal which is why I think it has already been done, with less than spectacular results. if the (400-280=) 120 ppm CO2 increase caused the theoretical logarithmic result of ~0.5C then we could all put that piece of the puzzle away as confirmed, and move on to the next things such as feedbacks and climate sensitivity.

 

[Crick]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

 

[IanC]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

 

[JoeNormal]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions. That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most. Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.

 

[Kosh]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

 

[IanC]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions. That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most. Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.

JoeNormal- welcome to our sandbox, dont forget to wear your goggles.

GHGs are different from the nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere because they absorb surface IR in significant amounts but all of the gasses emit IR in all directions. Co2 seldom gets the chance to re-emit the same IR photon that it absorbs because it is more likely to 'thermalize' that energy in a molecular collision due to the time(collision) being much smaller than the time(emission).

water and land are nearly perfect IR emitters/absorbers so I dont understand your albedo remark. likewise I dont understand your specific gravity remark. are you commenting on humid or warmer air being lighter or ????.

as far as the experiment I described....spectography has been studied for a long time but there was no interest in the trivial temperature increase caused by absorbance. now there is interest in that (presumed) increase so an experiment should be run and publicized so that we see whether practical results follow theoretical assumptions. Crick is not right when he asserts that a legitimate and quantified experiment has been posted at USMB. we would have noticed. illegitimate experiments abound. non quantified experiments are also common. the public would like to see an experiment that shows what a 120 ppm CO2 increase does to temperature in the 280-400 range. it would be helpful to also see somewhat larger and smaller increases as well but it makes little sense to show a 100,000 ppm experiment. you cannot reasonably extrapolate downwards from a huge increase but that is the only kind of experiment available at the present time. repeating my style of experiment with 60, 120, 240, 480, 960 ppm CO2 should present evidence of whether it really is logarithmic doubling, the general magnitude of the warming, and inspire ways of refining the experiment. you know...science.

 

[JoeNormal]

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions. That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most. Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.

JoeNormal- welcome to our sandbox, dont forget to wear your goggles.

GHGs are different from the nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere because they absorb surface IR in significant amounts but all of the gasses emit IR in all directions. Co2 seldom gets the chance to re-emit the same IR photon that it absorbs because it is more likely to 'thermalize' that energy in a molecular collision due to the time(collision) being much smaller than the time(emission).

water and land are nearly perfect IR emitters/absorbers so I dont understand your albedo remark. likewise I dont understand your specific gravity remark. are you commenting on humid or warmer air being lighter or ????.

as far as the experiment I described....spectography has been studied for a long time but there was no interest in the trivial temperature increase caused by absorbance. now there is interest in that (presumed) increase so an experiment should be run and publicized so that we see whether practical results follow theoretical assumptions. Crick is not right when he asserts that a legitimate and quantified experiment has been posted at USMB. we would have noticed. illegitimate experiments abound. non quantified experiments are also common. the public would like to see an experiment that shows what a 120 ppm CO2 increase does to temperature in the 280-400 range. it would be helpful to also see somewhat larger and smaller increases as well but it makes little sense to show a 100,000 ppm experiment. you cannot reasonably extrapolate downwards from a huge increase but that is the only kind of experiment available at the present time. repeating my style of experiment with 60, 120, 240, 480, 960 ppm CO2 should present evidence of whether it really is logarithmic doubling, the general magnitude of the warming, and inspire ways of refining the experiment. you know...science.

My albedo remark refers to the reflectivity of the patch of land or see in question and if what you say about IR absorption is true, I guess we could say the albedo for IR is 0. The specific gravity remark means the temperature rise you could expect for a given amount of energy that's absorbed.

I think your experiment with such small concentrations in a lab sized container would show very little. There's not enough CO2 within that space to absorb much of the incident radiation. That's why I assume concentrations in the experiments were so high (otherwise you'd need the 25 mile container that I mentioned before).

I will say that you seem to know what you're talking about so perhaps I'll revisit my source of knowledge on GG mechanics.