First, and only, CO2 experiment

[mamooth]

[The temperature there is due to pressure.....

According to SSDD, my basketball and fire extinguisher should be constantly generating heat, being that they're pressurized. He's a perpetual energy/motion kook, as well as a denier kook.

Sweet Jeebus, most deniers are stupid. I know it's been said before, but I'm constantly amazed by how dumb they are.

 

[mamooth]

Unlike the USMB AGW Agitprop posters, I read the crap the AGW cult spews out. I've challenged them

And we've met the challenge over and over, causing you to run over and over. You're just boring.

Again, I suggest you check out the hundreds (at least) of references concerning CO2 at the HITRAN database. Our military builds working IR seeker heads for missiles based on the data that you say doesn't exist. That means you're a lying cult kook. Sucks to be you, cult boi.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unlike the USMB AGW Agitprop posters, I read the crap the AGW cult spews out. I've challenged them

And we've met the challenge over and over, causing you to run over and over. You're just boring.

Again, I suggest you check out the hundreds (at least) of references concerning CO2 at the HITRAN database. Our military builds working IR seeker heads for missiles based on the data that you say doesn't exist. That means you're a lying cult kook. Sucks to be you, cult boi.

I'm the only person who ever posted an experiment linking CO2 and temperature and we see that we need 1,000,000 parts per million to raise temperature.

Your theory is falsified, time for a new theory, one that has "one world government controlling everything" as the only solution

Back to the drawing board

 

[mamooth]

I'm the only person who ever posted an experiment linking CO2 and temperature and we see that we need 1,000,000 parts per million to raise temperature.

Suuuuure you did.

It's good that they allow you computer access there. You'll have to quit soon, but don't worry, the nice orderly will be around with your pudding cup.

Your theory is falsified, time for a new theory, one that has "one world government controlling everything" as the only solution

As my ongoing point is your your complete reliance on very strange conspiracy theories, I thank you for constantly proving that point.

 

[SSDD]

[The temperature there is due to pressure.....

According to SSDD, my basketball and fire extinguisher should be constantly generating heat, being that they're pressurized. He's a perpetual energy/motion kook, as well as a denier kook.

Sweet Jeebus, most deniers are stupid. I know it's been said before, but I'm constantly amazed by how dumb they are.

Sorry that you are unable to differentiate between what happens in a sealed, static container, and what happens out in a dynamic and chaotic atmosphere. And it is especially unfortunate that your cultish beliefs prompt you to ignore actual repeatable experimental evidence...Temperature graduations have been observed in columns of air...temperature graduations which are demonstrably due to changes in pressure.

Chalk yourself up for yet another epic fail...

 

[Wuwei]

Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

This topic was covered before. In Foote's experiment there was no heat of compression. That term refers to an adiabatic process where a gas gets warmer if there is an outside mechanical compressing force that quickly lower's it's volume. Think of a downward stroke of a piston heating a gas. Her experiment definitely was not adiabatic and there definitely was no quick change in volume.

Again there was no heat of compression. You have no reason to say the temperature would be the same with venting.

More mathematically, the ideal gas law is PV = nRT.
In Foote's experiment n and V are constant, when internal heat rises because of external thermal energy input. P rises because the other parameters are constant.

If the experiment were vented, V and P are constant. A rise in T must mean n (the number of molecules in the cylinder) must diminish. Venting would change the number of molecules in each side by side test container, and control container. Apples and oranges.

An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control

Just picking physics words out of the air and making a sentence with them does not make your case.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm the only person who ever posted an experiment linking CO2 and temperature and we see that we need 1,000,000 parts per million to raise temperature.

Suuuuure you did.

It's good that they allow you computer access there. You'll have to quit soon, but don't worry, the nice orderly will be around with your pudding cup.

Your theory is falsified, time for a new theory, one that has "one world government controlling everything" as the only solution

As my ongoing point is your your complete reliance on very strange conspiracy theories, I thank you for constantly proving that point.

1,000,000 PPM = 19F increase, 120 PPM increase = .002F > AGW Theory 120PPM raises temperature by more than 1F fails

Congratulations! Your theory was falsified! Welcome to the Scientific method!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

This topic was covered before. In Foote's experiment there was no heat of compression. That term refers to an adiabatic process where a gas gets warmer if there is an outside mechanical compressing force that quickly lower's it's volume. Think of a downward stroke of a piston heating a gas. Her experiment definitely was not adiabatic and there definitely was no quick change in volume.

Again there was no heat of compression. You have no reason to say the temperature would be the same with venting.

More mathematically, the ideal gas law is PV = nRT.
In Foote's experiment n and V are constant, when internal heat rises because of external thermal energy input. P rises because the other parameters are constant.

If the experiment were vented, V and P are constant. A rise in T must mean n (the number of molecules in the cylinder) must diminish. Venting would change the number of molecules in each side by side test container, and control container. Apples and oranges.

An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control

Just picking physics words out of the air and making a sentence with them does not make your case.

.

"An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control"

Post it please

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Her experiment used closed cylinders...the increased heat was due to the heat of compression...had she vented the cylinders, the temperature would have been the same for both cylinders...she acknowledges that pressure is the major player in her experiment...

This topic was covered before. In Foote's experiment there was no heat of compression. That term refers to an adiabatic process where a gas gets warmer if there is an outside mechanical compressing force that quickly lower's it's volume. Think of a downward stroke of a piston heating a gas. Her experiment definitely was not adiabatic and there definitely was no quick change in volume.

Again there was no heat of compression. You have no reason to say the temperature would be the same with venting.

More mathematically, the ideal gas law is PV = nRT.
In Foote's experiment n and V are constant, when internal heat rises because of external thermal energy input. P rises because the other parameters are constant.

If the experiment were vented, V and P are constant. A rise in T must mean n (the number of molecules in the cylinder) must diminish. Venting would change the number of molecules in each side by side test container, and control container. Apples and oranges.

An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control

Just picking physics words out of the air and making a sentence with them does not make your case.

.

Second request to post the "experiment" described above

"An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control - Google Search

odd

 

[ChemEngineer]

. Apples and oranges.

.

Isn't it amusing how people have compared "apples and oranges" as so dissimilar as to be not comparable.

1. They're both essentially spherical.
2. They're both roughly the same size.
3. They're both colorful when ripe.
4. They're both delicious for snacking or dessert.
5. They're both nutritious.

In other words, they're more alike than dissimilar.

How about "apples and supernovae"?

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

 

[SSDD]

"An experiment with venting was more recently done which showed that air with CO2 does get warmer than a control"

Post it please

Here is the text from an experiment done with both sealed containers and unsealed containers....the only difference between the two was the addition of a vent..

• From the Script for the video
  
  "A popular science experiment that purports to prove that adding extra carbon dioxide to the air will cause an enhanced "greenhouse effect" goes something like this.
  
  Start with two bottles:
  
  One of the bottles is left with regular air in it
  and the other bottle is filled with carbon dioxide
  from a seltzer bottle, carbon dioxide cartridge, dry ice or whatever.
  
  Experiment #1
  
  Since I used data recorders to monitor the temperature inside the bottles in my experiment, I put these recorders into the bottles before adding the carbon dioxide to one of them.
  
  I left a third data recorder outside of the bottles away from the experiment but in the same room so that I could measure the temperature change of each gas above room temperature when they were heated with infrared radiation.
  
  I then closed the lids on both bottles tight enough to keep the gases from escaping during the experiment. Once the bottles were prepared heat lamps of equal strength were positioned at equal distance from each bottle and the lamps were then turned on.
  
  I recorded what happened and here are my results.
  
  On this graph the red line is the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is the temperature of the regular air.
  
  The carbon dioxide reached about 22 degrees Celsius above room temperature, while the regular air only reached about 16 degrees Celsius above room temperature.
  
  As you can also see in this graph the carbon dioxide got warmer more quickly than the regular air and stayed about 6 degrees Celsius warmer throughout the experiment.
  
  This experiment has been performed hundreds of times at science fairs around the country and it is proclaimed to be empirical evidence of the 'greenhouse effect', which postulates that the greater warming of the carbon dioxide in this experiment is caused by the carbon dioxide absorbing more infrared radiation than did the regular air, thus affirming the belief that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will cause it to be warmer than it would otherwise be.
  
  Experiment #2
  
  So, after the bottles cooled to room temperature
  I repeated the experiment with the lids vented to allow the gases to expand as they would in the real atmosphere and these are the results that I got.
  
  As you can see, that which was being called the "greenhouse effect" disappeared when the gases were allowed to expand freely the way they do in the outside atmosphere.
  
  On this second graph the red line is still the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is still the temperature of the air, but as you can see they now track together quite nicely.
  
  Also notice that without the 'heat of compression' even the air only warms about 7 degrees Celsius, which is less than half of the 16 degrees Celsius of warming that it experienced under the 'heat of compression.'
  
  ....you get the graph on the right, which shows virtually no temperature differential between carbon dioxide and air when heated by infrared radiation.
  
  What can we conclude from this experiment?
  
  When carbon dioxide is allowed to expand when heated it does not become any warmer than does regular air, therefore this experiment contains no evidence that carbon dioxide causes an enhanced "greenhouse effect".
  
  Rather it confirms what is already know, that carbon dioxide has, what is called, a greater "coefficient of thermal expansion" than does regular air.
  If you are paying attention though, this experiment has an even greater lesson to teach us.
  
  The Greater Lesson
  
  So, how then might this experiment serve as a metaphor for what's happening in the larger world of climate science today?
  
  Is it possible that a similar misidentification of natural forces exists on a larger scale within the real world atmosphere? Let's take a look.
  
  This is what the 'greenhouse effect' hypothesis is all about it offers an explanation of why these two temperatures are different.
  
  The temperature on the left, the minus 18 degrees Celsius, is the temperature at which scientists have calculated that the atmosphere should be to maintain balance with incoming sunlight, but they have noticed that the measured global mean temperature at the surface of the earth is around plus 15 degrees Celsius.
  
  This is a difference of 33 degrees Celsius.
  
  The question then is 'Where did this extra 33 degrees Celsius of warming come from?'
  
  A number of scientists assert that this extra 33 degrees Celsius of warming at the earth's surface is caused by the 'greenhouse effect.'
  
  I would like to offer for your consideration an alternative explanation.
  
  As it turns out there actually is not any extra heat in the atmosphere.
  
  The temperature of the atmosphere is exactly what it should be, as calculated, to maintain perfect balance with incoming sunlight - it is roughly minus 18 degrees Celsius at its core, at its center mass, which is about 5 kilometers up.
  
  The real question then is not, 'Why is the surface of the earth 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere.'
  
  The real question is, 'Why is the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface of the earth 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it is at the atmosphere's core, at its center mass, which is about 5 kilometers up in the sky?'
  
  Well, it should be obvious that this warming is caused by the 'heat of compression,' since the force of gravity compresses the air below the center mass of the atmosphere against the surface of the earth.
  
  The relationship between a gas's volume, pressure and temperature, which our tabletop experiment demonstrated quite nicely, is not a new discovery.
  
  It has been know for centuries as the Ideal Gas Law.
  
  [de Thermische Zustandsgleichung idealer Gase en Ideal gas law}
  
  So, when the gravity compresses the atmosphere against the surface of the earth the operation of the Ideal Gas Law demands that the surface temperature increase as a result.
  
  Do to the specific mass of our atmosphere this compression raises the mean global temperature from a minus 18 degrees Celsius at the atmosphere's core to a plus 15 degrees Celsius at the earth's surface.
  
  This is a total of about 33 degrees Celsius.
  
  This can even be demonstrated mathematically, because it has been observed through millions of weather balloon soundings over the past 100 years that the average rate at which the air temperature changes as you change altitude is about 6.5 degrees Celsius per kilometer, either up or down.
  
  As you go up the air gets cooler as you go down the air gets warmer just because the air pressure changes with altitude.
  
  High altitude skydivers experience the Ideal Gas Law every time they jump.
  
  If, for instance, they start their jump at the atmosphere's center mass, about 5 kilometers up, for every km that they fall the air becomes about 6.5 degrees Celsius warmer so by the time that they reach the ground they will have experienced roughly 33C of warming.
  
  So, the mystery is solved.
  
  There is no extra heat in the atmosphere.
  
  It is exactly the temperature that it needs to be to maintain balance with incoming sunlight.
  
  It is just that the air beneath the center mass of the atmosphere is being compressed by gravity raising the surface temperature about 33 degrees Celsius above what it would be if there were no gravity.
  
  So, even as in our tabletop experiment where the operation of the Ideal Gas Law was misidentified as being an enhanced "greenhouse effect".
  
  So to, in the real world atmosphere the 'heat of compression' created by the force of gravity is being misidentified as the 'greenhouse effect.'
  
  In the tabletop experiment when the 'heat of compression' was removed the so-called 'greenhouse effect' disappeared.
  
  Were we able to suspend the force of gravity than that, which is currently being called the global 'greenhouse effect', would disappear as well and the atmosphere at the surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius cooler.
  
  So, even though it has been asserted 'Without the natural greenhouse effect the surface of the planet would be about 33 degrees Celsius colder on average,'
  
  What we should be saying is that
  'without the force of gravity compressing the lower atmosphere, the surface of the planet would be about 33 degrees Celsius colder on average than it is now.'
  

 

[sparky]

But he adds: “It is clear that Eunice Foote deserves credit for being an innovator on the topic of CO2 and its potential impact on global climate warming.

”

So just how does antiquated science add up to CC fraud?

~S~

 

[Wuwei]

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It shows that the bottle with CO2 starts out colder, and in the end becomes warmer.

 

[ReinyDays]

Nice video ... but isn't this a demonstration of CO2's lower specific heat? ... for equal energy content of our containers, CO2 would be a higher temperature regardless of it's radiative properties ... water at the bottom of each container, should be beer? ... what's the saturation value of water vapor in pure CO2 compared to air? ...

The biggest mistake is simulating sunshine heating the atmosphere ... that's only true in the top 200mb ... below this (and that's 80% of the atmosphere) the air is heated by the Earth, not by the Sun directly ...

I just don't trust kids that age who aren't pumping down beers and smoking pot ... call me conservative if you want, but those kids are up to something ... to clean, to lawful; they're hiding something ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It shows that the bottle with CO2 starts out colder, and in the end becomes warmer.

100% CO2 atmosphere right? Why no experiment controlling for 120PPM additional CO2?

 

[SSDD]

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It shows that the bottle with CO2 starts out colder, and in the end becomes warmer.

Been through it...that experiment shows that if you heat water vapor, it gets warm...that experiment has nothing to do with CO2 and is all about water vapor...Sorry you are so easily fooled.

 

[SSDD]

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It shows that the bottle with CO2 starts out colder, and in the end becomes warmer.

100% CO2 atmosphere right? Why no experiment controlling for 120PPM additional CO2?

Not 100%...the humidity in those bottles is through the roof...the experiment is showing that H20 vapor can heat up..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It shows that the bottle with CO2 starts out colder, and in the end becomes warmer.

100% CO2 atmosphere right? Why no experiment controlling for 120PPM additional CO2?

Not 100%...the humidity in those bottles is through the roof...the experiment is showing that H20 vapor can heat up..

Right. once again using H2O to drive up temperature

 

[SSDD]

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It shows that the bottle with CO2 starts out colder, and in the end becomes warmer.

100% CO2 atmosphere right? Why no experiment controlling for 120PPM additional CO2?

Not 100%...the humidity in those bottles is through the roof...the experiment is showing that H20 vapor can heat up..

Right. once again using H2O to drive up temperature

More importantly, it points out how easily people can be fooled...they see what they wan't to see rather than what is actually happening...or they have no idea what is happening and are wiling to simply take someones word who is telling them what they want to hear.