First, and only, CO2 experiment

[SSDD]

You think there is no light on a moonless night? There you go...question answered...just because it is moonless doesn't mean that there is no light.

Yes ... I've been on eyepiece duty before ... takes a good three or four hours to image that light on film that's packed in dry ice ... and someone has to sit and keep the telescope centered on the target ...

That's not why your film is being fogged after a couple of seconds exposure ...

Lay that film on the counter in a dark room and leave it there till the cows come home ...there is more CO2 inside than outside, but set off a CO2 bomb in the darkroom as well if you are unsure...f your belief were true, then you would have more back radiation fogging your film in the darkroom than you would outside...but alas..you won't...

Chalk up one more example of people who want to believe in back radiation fooling themselves into believing that it happens...

 

[SSDD]

Yes ... ln (405/280) = ln 1.45 = 0.372 ... what we saying here is that temperature change is proportional to the logarithm of concentration change ... 5.35 is the constant of proportionality ... so now we have ∆T = 5.35 x 0.372 x k = 1.99 x k ... whatever k is, it's still unknown ...

It makes up nicely with the AGW Theory and I wonder if there is lab work showing the same results?

You are kidding...right?

 

[SSDD]

It makes up nicely with the AGW Theory and I wonder if there is lab work showing the same results?

There you go ... theory is theory ... now we need to demonstrate whether the theory is correct or not ... like shining a light on a vessel of gas and see if the temperature goes up ... I'd like to think someone has done this under laboratory conditions, but I sure can't find any results yet ... my Google-Fu ain't very good, maybe someone else can go looking for awhile ...

Oh...i'm sure the experiment has been done over and over and over under the strictest of lab conditions...but since the results don't support the narrative, they would never see the light of day...believers would like nothing more than actual empirical evidence to support their hysterical handwaving...and if a skeptic does it...ho hum..."the science is settled"..."consensus"...."oil company shill"..."George W Bush"....

 

[ReinyDays]

Lay that film on the counter in a dark room and leave it there till the cows come home ...there is more CO2 inside than outside, but set off a CO2 bomb in the darkroom as well if you are unsure...f your belief were true, then you would have more back radiation fogging your film in the darkroom than you would outside...but alas..you won't...

Chalk up one more example of people who want to believe in back radiation fooling themselves into believing that it happens...

Strictly speaking, cows emit CH4 by belching, not farting ... and they don't have to be home ... which as good an answer your posting deserves ...

You can change the conditions of the experience all you want to ... and each change will change the results ... that's well known in science and one of the most important jobs of the peer-review team of any reputable scientific publication ... you're not going to try this, because you know I'm right ... This is part of your "my eyes are closed and you can't make me open them" religious philosophy, like you think murderous glaciers are cool or something ... "all hail intelligent photons, they're smarter than me so they must be smarter than you" ...

The film fogs ... I've done something similar (on accident) ... just because you can't explain why doesn't mean I can't ... ah, you've covered your ears now, such a shame, the third part is covering your mouth, remember? ...

 

[SSDD]

Strictly speaking, cows emit CH4 by belching, not farting ... and they don't have to be home ... which as good an answer your posting deserves .

And all the CH4 that the cows can make aren't going to fog your film either.

You can change the conditions of the experience all you want to ... and each change will change the results ... that's well known in science and one of the most important jobs of the peer-review team of any reputable scientific publication ...

What change in conditions? Other than eliminating visible light. The counters, walls, and floors of the dark room are still warmer than the air in the room and are therefore radiating...maybe you are saying that CO2 can only back radiate outside but absorbs and emits differently? You have warmer surfaces radiating into the air...you have an even higher concentration of CO2 inside than you have outside...the conditions are essentially the same...but no back radiation fogging the film...just as there is no back radiation fogging the film outside...the only difference is that you have completely eliminated light...and viola....no more fogging film.

You will believe what you want to believe and it is highly doubtful that you could be convinced otherwise...never mind empirical evidence...you have a terribly flawed mathematical model and belief....which trumps all...

you're not going to try this, because you know I'm right ...

There is no point, because I know that you are wrong....it isn't dark just because the moon isn't out...starlight...or ambient light reflected from clouds is enough to fog film...any trace of light is enough to fog film. I have spent plenty of time in the darkroom, where there is plenty of radiation emitting from the solid surfaces, and plenty of CO2 to back radiate and fog film if such a thing were possible...but what do you know...it never happens...never ever...no matter how much your mathematical model says so.

This is part of your "my eyes are closed and you can't make me open them" religious philosophy, like you think murderous glaciers are cool or something ... "all hail intelligent photons, they're smarter than me so they must be smarter than you" ...

Sorry guy...you are the one closing your eyes to empirical evidence...unless you care to explain why a higher concentration of CO2 inside would refuse to fog the film while the lower concentration outside would be more than obliging.

And intelligent photons? Are you another one who believes that everything must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics? All hail smart rocks that know to fall down when dropped...and smart air which knows that it can not rush into the punctured tire to fill it up...and smart water which knows that it must flow downhill.

The film fogs ... I've done something similar (on accident) ... just because you can't explain why doesn't mean I can't ... ah, you've covered your ears now, such a shame, the third part is covering your mouth, remember? ...

Of course the film fogs outside.....it is because it is never truly dark outside...not the sort of dark you can create in a dark room....And your film fogs because of that...not because you wish it were back radiation from CO2...or CH4...or any other absorbing gas you care to name...

 

[ReinyDays]

I'll let you watch Seseme Street so Big Bird can explain to you the difference between "inside" and "outside" ... and go ahead and post the mistaken step in the rigid mathematical proof that the finest minds of the past 100 years have missed ... show us you're smarter than Hubble, Maxwell, Young, Einstein and Planck ... no way are you as pompous as I am ...

Let's see if you're smart enough to know there's a special thread for this discussion ... and let's see if you're smart enough to post there ...

 

[SSDD]

I'll let you watch Seseme Street so Big Bird can explain to you the difference between "inside" and "outside"

Do tell...how is radiation..absorption and emission different inside than it is outside? Questioning minds want to know.

... and go ahead and post the mistaken step in the rigid mathematical proof that the finest minds of the past 100 years have missed ... show us you're smarter than Hubble, Maxwell, Young, Einstein and Planck ... no way are you as pompous as I am ...

Which of those brilliant minds ever suggested spontaneous energy flow from a cool object to a warmer object...or that a cool object could further warm a warmer object?

Let's see if you're smart enough to know there's a special thread for this discussion ... and let's see if you're smart enough to post there ...

What's the matter? Nose out of joint because CO2 won't fog film in a darkroom? It won't fog film outside either...if you could figure out how to make it truly dark outside, then your film wouldn't fog...try it in a cave...all natural...no man made surfaces...plenty of CO2...if you are deep enough to completely escape light, your film won't fog there either no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

Empirical...observable....repeatable evidence that your hypothesis is wrong and what do you do? Ignore it.....go off on some tangent claiming that absorption, radiation, and emission are somehow different inside than they are outside...which physical law suggests such a thing?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes ... ln (405/280) = ln 1.45 = 0.372 ... what we saying here is that temperature change is proportional to the logarithm of concentration change ... 5.35 is the constant of proportionality ... so now we have ∆T = 5.35 x 0.372 x k = 1.99 x k ... whatever k is, it's still unknown ...

It makes up nicely with the AGW Theory and I wonder if there is lab work showing the same results?

You are kidding...right?

Not kidding about my 20+ years ask for an Experiment

 

[ReinyDays]

Not kidding about my 20+ years ask for an Experiment

Oh, I believe you ... for 75 years we never bother to check the Big Bang Theory ... and when we did ... opps ... at least the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics has a sense of humor ... it seems like no one else does ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not kidding about my 20+ years ask for an Experiment

Oh, I believe you ... for 75 years we never bother to check the Big Bang Theory ... and when we did ... opps ... at least the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics has a sense of humor ... it seems like no one else does ...

LOLz. You're equating de minimus changes in an atmospheric rounding error of a gas with the Big Bang. LOLz. You Warmers are a strange Cult .

Oh no! We can't test for 400ppm of CO2, cause, er, the Big Bang!

 

[ReinyDays]

I was just using that as an example of what people will assume to be true without realizing it's never been tested ... and AGW Theory is another example ... I spewed that log function above straight out of the IPCC report ... anyone with any amount of math training will know that log functions have a very specific behavior, and that behavior is completely opposite these "crisis" claims ... simple arithmetic shows all the missing mass ...

Math is hard, especially if you're a liberal ...