No Evidence

[Crick]

Wuwei, I'm certain he understands it just fine. He chooses to maintain this bullshit line just to wind people up. That's what a TROLL does.

 

[Wuwei]

Vent the containers and you have no more warming in the CO2 jar than you have in the common air jar...heat of compression...

Being easily fooled is why you are a dupe...or are you a dupe because you are easily fooled?

You still don't get the difference between pressure caused by compression and pressure caused by a temperature increase.

Heat of compression involves an outside mechanical force that reduces the volume of the gas. In an adiabatic process that will increase the temperature along with the pressure.

In short, you are confusing heat due to compression with pressure due to heat.

Putting a vent in the cylinders compromises the experiment by letting unknown amounts of gases and energy to escape, creating lower densities within.

In Foote's experiment continuous radiation from an outside source increased the temperature of the CO2 cylinder more than the air cylinder. Of course the pressure increases. But it is not heat of compression. You have not invalidated Foote's experiment. You are simply confused.

.

 

[SSDD]

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration. Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....

 

[Crick]

A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers. the GHG side is warmer.

PS: you've seen this before.

 

[Wuwei]

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration. Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It proves you wrong.



.

 

[jc456]

Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

dude, I'm not opening your link. you either forward the info you feel backs your claim or let your post die. I'm not opening that fking link without the forward.

 

[jc456]

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim... Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not...

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim... Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not... But hey...believe whatever you want...it is how you get through life, isn't it...you alter, modify, and deliberately change anything that doesn't agree with your belief in order to maintain said belief...it is also why you are so easily fooled...

water vapor freezes. Why doesn't the CO2 in the air?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim... Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not...

Water at any of the pressure and temperature conditions included in the yellow section of this graph, is a gas. There are only three phases of state here: solid, liquid and gas. A mist of water is liquid water. It is visible, as in a cloud or the visible mist above a boiling pot in your kitchen. Gaseous water is invisible. When your barometer tells you that the relative humidity is 70%, it is telling you there is gaseous water in the air around you but you cannot see it.

Vapor is visible.....you need a microscope to see it, but it is visible, and in the case of water, the "particles" have definite shapes...Vapor is not a gas, regardless of what you claim... Vapor is simply not consistent with the gas laws...then there is the undeniable fact that gas is a state of matter while vapor is not... But hey...believe whatever you want...it is how you get through life, isn't it...you alter, modify, and deliberately change anything that doesn't agree with your belief in order to maintain said belief...it is also why you are so easily fooled...

water vapor freezes. Why doesn't the CO2 in the air?

 

[Crick]

Why hasn't Same Shit come back to gloat?

; - )

 

[SSDD]

Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

Who ever said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? Of course it absorbs then it promptly emits the IR or loses the energy via collision...IR does not warm the air...no matter how much CO2 is in it.

A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers. the GHG side is warmer.

PS: you've seen this before.

Laughing at you..

 

[SSDD]

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration. Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It proves you wrong.


Do the experiment yourself....

And isn't it interesting that you can't find any actual scientists doing experiments demonstrating the warming power of CO2...always you tube experiments...want to know why? If an actual scientist tried that sort of crap...other scientists would be coming out of the wood work calling him on his bullshit...you are easily fooled...no doubt about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Experiments demonstrating the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

Who ever said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? Of course it absorbs then it promptly emits the IR or loses the energy via collision...IR does not warm the air...no matter how much CO2 is in it.

A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers. the GHG side is warmer.

PS: you've seen this before.

Laughing at you..

Who ever said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR? Of course it absorbs then it promptly emits the IR or loses the energy via collision.

And when non-GHGs gain that energy via collision, do they warm?

 

[MAGAman]

MMGW and Russian Collusion.

Democrats are at least consistent.

 

[Crick]

Making Middle Grades Work?

 

[SSDD]

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration. Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It proves you wrong.
.

When I said that you were easily fooled, I thought that perhaps you might do a bit of investigating...I guess I thought wrong.

Tell me, is your wish to be correct so strong that it makes you blind to the obvious errors, or are you so scientifically illiterate, that you really have no idea what the glaring flaws are in that experiment? Do you just know the pseudoscience that climate science spews and are completely ignorant of all other aspects of the sciences? Like your gross misunderstanding of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes?

The experiment does not prove I am wrong..the experiment only proves how easily you are fooled...CO2 is an odorless, colorless, invisible gas. When you drop a piece of dry ice in water, do you have any idea what that fog is? Here is a hint, it isn't CO2....That fog you see is water vapor...so you fill a bottler with water vapor and CO2...point heat lamps at it while there is still a puddle of water in the bottom of the bottle and do you have any idea what you get? Water vapor and lots of it...the bottle was super saturated with humidity...it wasn't CO2 that was warming...it was water vapor.

Send your you tube buddies an email and congratulate them for proving that a bottle full of water vapor warms up more and faster than dryer air...

You are easily fooled...I believe it is because you simply don't have a clue...which is probably why you are so f'ing tedious....you don't understand what people are saying to you so you interpret into something that is nothing like what they said because that is how little you actually understand.....

 

[SSDD]

A GHG/non-GHG warming experiment with non-airtight containers. the GHG side is warmer.

PS: you've seen this before.

That experiment has been debunked so may times that if it were anyone else, I would be very surprised that they even wanted someone else to see it...much less offer it up as evidence of a greenhouse effect...

But you providing it skidmark...doesn't surprise me at all...you are that stupid and that easily fooled...I never stop laughing at you....engineer my ass...

 

[Crick]

You all claimed that the CO2 side was not a recreation of the current atmosphere but one consisting of pure CO2. The experiment in which you claimed compression was the cause of the excess warming WAS pure CO2 yet you claimed that if the containers had been vented there would be NO warming. These containers are vented and there is still excess warming in the CO2 container.

 

[Crick]

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration. Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It proves you wrong.
.

When I said that you were easily fooled, I thought that perhaps you might do a bit of investigating...I guess I thought wrong.

Tell me, is your wish to be correct so strong that it makes you blind to the obvious errors, or are you so scientifically illiterate, that you really have no idea what the glaring flaws are in that experiment? Do you just know the pseudoscience that climate science spews and are completely ignorant of all other aspects of the sciences? Like your gross misunderstanding of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes?

The experiment does not prove I am wrong..the experiment only proves how easily you are fooled...CO2 is an odorless, colorless, invisible gas. When you drop a piece of dry ice in water, do you have any idea what that fog is? Here is a hint, it isn't CO2....That fog you see is water vapor...so you fill a bottler with water vapor and CO2...point heat lamps at it while there is still a puddle of water in the bottom of the bottle and do you have any idea what you get? Water vapor and lots of it...the bottle was super saturated with humidity...it wasn't CO2 that was warming...it was water vapor.

Send your you tube buddies an email and congratulate them for proving that a bottle full of water vapor warms up more and faster than dryer air...

You are easily fooled...I believe it is because you simply don't have a clue...which is probably why you are so f'ing tedious....you don't understand what people are saying to you so you interpret into something that is nothing like what they said because that is how little you actually understand.....

The fog created by dry ice is water vapor that was already in the air forced to condense by extremely cold CO2 vapor sublimating from the dry ice. Dropping something extremely cold (-78.5C. -109.8F) into water is certainly not going to cause extra evaporation to take place and the sublimation of the dry ice is not violent enough to create a mist mechanically. When the mist cleared, there was no condensation on the container. As is apparently ALWAYS the case, your interpretation of events is completely incorrect.

Dry ice is often used to make fog for special effects and information about the effect is widely available.

Of course, you won't care about the facts because not only was this a case of perfect PWNAGE, you're a

TROLL

 

[jc456]

Vent the top of the jar and the temperature increase in both jars will be the same regardless of the CO2 concentration. Sealed jars are only demonstrating the heat of compression....

Here is an experiment with vented bottles. It proves you wrong.
.

When I said that you were easily fooled, I thought that perhaps you might do a bit of investigating...I guess I thought wrong.

Tell me, is your wish to be correct so strong that it makes you blind to the obvious errors, or are you so scientifically illiterate, that you really have no idea what the glaring flaws are in that experiment? Do you just know the pseudoscience that climate science spews and are completely ignorant of all other aspects of the sciences? Like your gross misunderstanding of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes?

The experiment does not prove I am wrong..the experiment only proves how easily you are fooled...CO2 is an odorless, colorless, invisible gas. When you drop a piece of dry ice in water, do you have any idea what that fog is? Here is a hint, it isn't CO2....That fog you see is water vapor...so you fill a bottler with water vapor and CO2...point heat lamps at it while there is still a puddle of water in the bottom of the bottle and do you have any idea what you get? Water vapor and lots of it...the bottle was super saturated with humidity...it wasn't CO2 that was warming...it was water vapor.

Send your you tube buddies an email and congratulate them for proving that a bottle full of water vapor warms up more and faster than dryer air...

You are easily fooled...I believe it is because you simply don't have a clue...which is probably why you are so f'ing tedious....you don't understand what people are saying to you so you interpret into something that is nothing like what they said because that is how little you actually understand.....

The fog created by dry ice is water vapor that was already in the air forced to condense by extremely cold CO2 vapor sublimating from the dry ice. Dropping something extremely cold (-78.5C. -109.8F) into water is certainly not going to cause extra evaporation to take place and the sublimation of the dry ice is not violent enough to create a mist mechanically. When the mist cleared, there was no condensation on the container. As is apparently ALWAYS the case, your interpretation of events is completely incorrect.

Dry ice is often used to make fog for special effects and information about the effect is widely available.

Of course, you won't care about the facts because not only was this a case of perfect PWNAGE, you're a

TROLL

so do you supposed you get compression?

DRY ICE EXPERIMENTS

https://web.stanford.edu/~wanjen/49ers/Dry%20Ice%20Experiments.doc

"Magic Balloon

RIDDLE: What gets smaller, but gets a thousand times bigger?

Fill a large balloon with some pieces of dry ice using a funnel. (Remember to wear gloves). You can even add some warm water to the balloon. Tie off the balloon and you will see the balloon look as if it is blowing itself up. If you put enough dry ice in the balloon, the balloon will pop. This is supposed to happen, BUT DO BE CAREFUL. Stand far away from the balloon when it is about to pop.

WHAT IS HAPPENING: When regular ice melts, it goes from being a solid to a liquid and drips all over. In thes experiment, dry ice doesn't really melt, but it does get smaller. The Carbon Dioxide undergoes what is known as a phase change. The dry ice goes from a solid state, straight to a gaseous state, (which is" "

 

[Wuwei]

Do the experiment yourself....

And isn't it interesting that you can't find any actual scientists doing experiments demonstrating the warming power of CO2...always you tube experiments...want to know why? If an actual scientist tried that sort of crap...other scientists would be coming out of the wood work calling him on his bullshit...you are easily fooled...no doubt about it.

All a scientist has to do is measure the absorption spectrum of CO2 in an experiment. There are plenty of papers accurately measuring that. That tells quantitatively how much energy is absorbed by the CO2 and thus the affect on temperature. (It's science that you don't believe.) It is difficult and unnecessary to do it any other way.

Science fair experiments with two bottles give qualitative results and are easy for kids to do.

.