No Evidence

[Wuwei]

.... Snip obnoxious ranting....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.

Of course the fog is water vapor. They started recording temperatures after the vapor dissipated.
Both bottles had water at the bottom.
Both bottles were heated the same way.
The experiment lasted 32 minutes.
There was plenty of time for the vapor content in both bottles to come to equilibrium.
Look at the video at 4:32. The system was at equilibrium for a full 15 minutes.

The points you are raising are not valid.

.

 

[SSDD]

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.

All the bogus greenhouse experiments don't depend on the heat of compression...the ones in bottles generally do, but as wuwei's showed, you can raise the humidity so high that all you are doing is demonstrating that moist air warms more than drier air...the mythbusters experiment relies on multiple errors in order to show warming..and has been debunked so many times that it is an embarrassment to most...but since you are so easily fooled, I guess you still believe it shows what it claims to show..

 

[SSDD]

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.

Watch a slow motion video of dry ice in water...the fog is in the bubbles rising from the surface of the ice....the water vapor is already in the bubbles before they reach the surface....at about 14 seconds, the view switches to the side of the glass...the humidity is already in the bubbles...again...you are very easily fooled..



engineer my ass

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...IR does not warm the air...the experiments are clearly good enough to fool you...and your skidmark buddy...

 

[Wuwei]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...IR does not warm the air...the experiments are clearly good enough to fool you...and your skidmark buddy...

You yourself said that CO2 does not immediately emit the energy it absorbs. Re-emission of radiation just absorbed is very improbable. You said it when you quoted Happer's paper. Science agrees with that. Are you now saying you were fooled back then? Now you are changing your mind. You are sure dancing around the subject.

 

[Crick]

The most basic question, which you have yet to answer, is where does the energy go?

 

[SSDD]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...IR does not warm the air...the experiments are clearly good enough to fool you...and your skidmark buddy...

You yourself said that CO2 does not immediately emit the energy it absorbs. Re-emission of radiation just absorbed is very improbable. You said it when you quoted Happer's paper. Science agrees with that. Are you now saying you were fooled back then? Now you are changing your mind. You are sure dancing around the subject.

Absorption and emission do not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction....that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible...

Again..the tedium is tremendous...You have distorted my words just like this at least 5 times before and I have had to correct you at least 5 times before...review this exact argument over and over to see where it all fell apart for you..

 

[SSDD]

The most basic question, which you have yet to answer, is where does the energy go?

Out to space...where do you think it goes?

 

[Crick]

Do you believe that all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface goes directly to space?

 

[SSDD]

Do you believe that all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface goes directly to space?

No...as I said, almost all the IR emitted by earth's surface is quickly lost by radiative gasses via collision and is then conducted to the top of the troposphere...thus eliminating the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

 

[Crick]

You seemed to have missed a step. It is first absorbed by "radiative gases" (ie GHGs, primarily CO2 and water vapor). It is then transferred by conduction and radiation to the rest of the atmosphere. I am glad to see you accepting this mechanism. But it leaves two questions regarding your other contentions:

1) What prevents that thermal energy from traveling, via conduction or radiation, back to the Earth's surface?
2) How does the atmosphere absorb that energy without, as you claim, getting warmer?

 

[Wuwei]

Absorption and emission do not warm the air...the air is warmed via conduction....that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible...

Again..the tedium is tremendous...You have distorted my words just like this at least 5 times before and I have had to correct you at least 5 times before...review this exact argument over and over to see where it all fell apart for you..

You still aren't clear. When you say "absorption and emission do not warm the air" do you mean absorption of LW IR and immediate re-emission at the same wavelength?
Or do you mean absorption of LW IR and kinetic transfer to via collision with another molecule?

We wouldn't have to go over this 5 times if you would just settle down and precisely explain the entire process you are trying to get across. That would settle potential problems. As it is you seem to be thinking of a process that violates conservation of energy.

Edit. Oops. I didn't see that Crick is asking the same question as I just did.

.

 

[Crick]

No problem, you consistently ask it better.

I'm quite convinced that he has no intention of "settling down" and is assiduously avoids explaining the entire process he envisions because he knows it is complete bullshit and just wants to laugh at people who think he might be interested in the truth.

That would be because SSDD is a TROLL

 

[SSDD]

You seemed to have missed a step. It is first absorbed by "radiative gases" (ie GHGs, primarily CO2 and water vapor). It is then transferred by conduction and radiation to the rest of the atmosphere. I am glad to see you accepting this mechanism. But it leaves two questions regarding your other contentions:

I didn't miss a thing...Can you show me the part about the vast bulk of energy being conducted to the top of the troposphere in the description of the radiative greenhouse effect? Of course you can't...the radiative greenhouse effect assumes that most energy is radiated about through the troposphere...and it just doesn't happen...

1) What prevents that thermal energy from traveling, via conduction or radiation, back to the Earth's surface?[;quote]

So since conduction is moving the energy now and there is no back radiation as you claim, you are going to now start to claim back conduction? You are laughable skid mark...absolutely laughable

2) How does the atmosphere absorb that energy without, as you claim, getting warmer?

Who said that the atmosphere doesn't warm due to the energy? It is warmed via conduction, and auto compression due to gravity....there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but if you care to drag up the descriptions of the mechanics of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and point out the part where they state that most energy is moved through the troposphere via conduction, I would be interested in seeing it...

We both know that isn't going to happen though because this is how the IPCC describes the greenhouse effect.....

"Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet."

Nothing about "trapping" radiation...all about the atmosphere heating up the surface of the planet via back radiation....energy from the cooler atmosphere actually heating up the surface of the planet.....open your refrigerator door and measure how much warmer the floor in front of that door gets...and your refrigerator isn't nearly as cold as the atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

You still aren't clear. When you say "absorption and emission do not warm the air" do you mean absorption of LW IR and immediate re-emission at the same wavelength?
Or do you mean absorption of LW IR and kinetic transfer to via collision with another molecule?

I don't guess you know the difference between radiation and conduction...conduction warms the atmosphere...not radiation...that being the case, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is not possible.

 

[Crick]

As I expected, you still fail to clearly explain what you are talking about.

Are you stating that a molecule of gas that absorbs a photon does not warm?

Or, are you stating that a molecule that absorbs a photon and then passes that energy off by radiation or conduction does not, itself, end up at an increased temperature?

Or, as you stating that a molecule that absorbs a photon and then passes that energy off by conduction fails to warm the gas to which that energy transferred?

I hope I have explained the confusion your abbreviated descriptions have caused.

 

[SSDD]

As I expected, you still fail to clearly explain what you are talking about.

Are you stating that a molecule of gas that absorbs a photon does not warm?

Are you claiming that when energy is conducted, it is moved via photons? Is that what you are claiming skidmark....say that is what you are claiming?

 

[Crick]

I never said any such thing. You have already admitted the GHGs absorb IR radiation. Once that happens, it has been your claim that the energy is transferred to other molecules by conduction. That is the model I am working with in all of my questions.

 

[SSDD]

I never said any such thing. You have already admitted the GHGs absorb IR radiation. Once that happens, it has been your claim that the energy is transferred to other molecules by conduction. That is the model I am working with in all of my questions.

I have said as clearly as possible that radiation does not warm the air...it can warm water vapor, but that is not "air" The radiative heating industry has plenty of experimental, observational, and operational evidence that this is true....Their product warms solid matter, not air...and their product radiates in the long IR wavelengths the same as the surface of the earth...

 

[Crick]

It should bother those who think you know what you're talking about that you so consistently have to go to such round-about efforts to support your contentions. Why are you going to the space heater industry when the subject has been widely studies for years by PhD scientists?

And, as expected, you still have made no effort to explain yourself.

Water vapor is a component of air.

From the sum of your statements I hold your position to be that IR from the surface is absorbed by water vapor and then transferred primarily by conduction to other molecules in the atmosphere. Is that correct