Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That is the whole point of using a control bottle without CO2! Both bottles were heated up. Both were exposed to the same humidity. If CO2 had no effect both bottles would rise to the same temperature. They didn't.Not 100%...the humidity in those bottles is through the roof...the experiment is showing that H20 vapor can heat up..
...the humidity in those bottles is through the roof...
That is the whole point of using a control bottle without CO2! Both bottles were heated up. Both were exposed to the same humidity. If CO2 had no effect both bottles would rise to the same temperature. They didn't.Not 100%...the humidity in those bottles is through the roof...the experiment is showing that H20 vapor can heat up..
Methinks you were the one that was fooled.
.
As SSDD pointed out, the CO2 bottle had both CO2 and H2O filling about 100% of it and what was the temperature differential between the bottles? Hmmm?
Some people on this forum believe absorption of LWIR by CO2 does not transfer thermal energy to the air. The experiment shows they are wrong. They would prefer to violate the conservation of energy since they refuse to say where that absorbed energy goes if it doesn't go to heat.As SSDD pointed out, the CO2 bottle had both CO2 and H2O filling about 100% of it and what was the temperature differential between the bottles? Hmmm?
It looks like only a few degrees.
Thank you for, once again, demonstrating that a 120PPM increase in CO2 will not affect temperature
So you admit that there's no temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppmSome people on this forum believe absorption of LWIR by CO2 does not transfer thermal energy to the air. The experiment shows they are wrong. They would prefer to violate the conservation of energy since they refuse to say where that absorbed energy goes if it doesn't go to heat.As SSDD pointed out, the CO2 bottle had both CO2 and H2O filling about 100% of it and what was the temperature differential between the bottles? Hmmm?
It looks like only a few degrees.
Thank you for, once again, demonstrating that a 120PPM increase in CO2 will not affect temperature
So you admit that there's no temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm
So you admit that there's no temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm
Yes, there is temperature increase ... the out-bound IR is absorbed by CO2, then a portion is re-emitted straight back down to the Earth ... thus the Earth's surface gets warmer ... which in turn heats the atmosphere ... there's an in-between step there that's important ...
..
So you admit that there's no temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm
Yes, there is temperature increase ... the out-bound IR is absorbed by CO2, then a portion is re-emitted straight back down to the Earth ... thus the Earth's surface gets warmer ... which in turn heats the atmosphere ... there's an in-between step there that's important ...
The trick here is that the CO2 only causes a little bit of temperature increase ... but this will cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere ... which it also a powerful greenhouse gas ... thus amplifying the effect of CO2 .......................................................
Yes it can.A radiation source can not be warmed by its own radiation...as much as you guys seem to wish it were so, it just can not happen.
So why aren't we tracking atmospheric H2O?
How much of this imaginary "temperature increase" is created by 120ppm of CO2? You sure seem smart, can you provide that number along with the calculations
Yes it can.A radiation source can not be warmed by its own radiation...as much as you guys seem to wish it were so, it just can not happen.
What does 'IR' mean in halogen bulb descriptions? from @Topbulb
This diagram shows the capsule inside an MR16 reflector. Several layers of durable, thin interference film are added to the capsule wall. This coating reflects otherwise wasted infrared radiation back onto the bulb filament. By recycling the radiant heat, less energy is required to raise the filament temperature to the optimum level. The result is a more efficient light bulb.
Not the first time science has fooled itself....not even the 1000th time...a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.
Not the first time science has fooled itself....not even the 1000th time...a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.
Are you suggesting that photons have memory? ... this flannel shirt I'm wearing right now doesn't generate heat, yet I'm warmer now than I would be if I took it off ... my body is warming itself ... no photonic memory required ...
In the thread specifically designated for this discussion, I described a simple experiment you could perform there in your backyard that fully demonstrates a body being warmed by it's own radiation ... have you tried yet? ...
Didn't really even look...at its core, such an experiment would turn out to be some sort of side show hucksterism sufficient to fool someone who wants to be fooled since it is impossible for a body to be warmed by its own radiation...
If you want to provide a link to the experiment I will be happy to try and figure out why you are being fooled into thinking that the body in question is being warmed by its own radiation.
So why aren't we tracking atmospheric H2O?
How much of this imaginary "temperature increase" is created by 120ppm of CO2? You sure seem smart, can you provide that number along with the calculations
We report water vapor by dew point temperature, and along with air temperature we can then calculate relative humidity and mass ... we also report liquid water content by cloud cover ... these values are given at most of the bigger airports every hour ... Chicago is currently reporting 91% RH, fog at the surface, and a layer of broken clouds at 2,500' ...
From the formula ∆T = k 5.35 ln (CF/CI) ... where ∆T is the temperature rise, k is the sensitivity factor, CI is the initial CO2 concentration and CF is the final CO2 concentration
Substituting our known values:
∆T = k 5.35 ln (405/280) --> ∆T = 1.99 k ºC
K is unknown at this time ... so this is a point of debate ... typical Hysteria tracks give this as k = 0.8, which in turn means current carbon dioxide levels have already increased surface temperatures 1.6ºC ... unfortunately we've only measured 0.6ºC increase, or k = 0.3 ... meaning temperature isn't as sensitive to carbon dioxide as it needs to be to cause problems ...
Why this value of k hasn't been determined experimentally is beyond my ability to understand ... perhaps it has and the National Enquirer or Nature and their like haven't reported it ... we do know it's a positive value qualitatively, the video wuwei posted above clearly demonstrates that fact ...
Also yet to be determined is how carbon sensitivity and emissivity are connected ... that's definitely a broken link in our cause-and-effect chain ... and without this link, we need to treat climate models with suspicion ... there's some assumptions that are made that are just not verified in any way yet ...
Use .8Depends of TI
The site clearly says "This coating reflects otherwise wasted infrared radiation back onto the bulb filament. By recycling the radiant heat, less energy is required to raise the filament temperature to the optimum level. The result is a more efficient light bulb".Not the first time you have fooled yourself....probably not even the 100th time...I repeat....a body can not be warmed by its own radiation.
A body can't be warmed by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature. Wish and want all you like, but a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...now if you want to input work, you can make all sorts of things happen..
