Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.... 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Do you believe that all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface goes directly to space?
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 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?[;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...
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?
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?
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.
