Q for the AGWCult

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. According to the "Spectral Qualities" of CO2 how much of a temperature increase is expected in a closed container given the following quantities of CO2: 0PPM, 10PPM, 100PPM, 1,000PPM?

A) we have consensus, we don't need to answer your question
B) DENIER!! DIE YOU ******* DENIER!!!!
C) Jennifer Francis says, "Turn on the Weather Channel and watch CO2 at work"

Seriously, I don't expect an answer, I expect answers ranging somewhere between pooh flinging monkeys at the primate house and froth and spittle flying from lunatics in an asylum.

Watch

 

[MisterBeale]

I once explained this whole controversy very simply so my kid could understand it.

First I showed him the Chart that the whole theory is based on so he could understand the debate.

Then I asked him what did he notice? Of course, he said that the temperatures seemed to got up BEFORE the CO2 went up. I told him that was very good. Then I told him that the Earth had far more CO2 then the humans could ever produce. It is dissolved in the permafrost and the oceans.

After breakfast we did a simple experiment. We took a 2-liter of Coke, poured it into three glasses. One glass we put on the counter, one we put into the refrigerator, and the other we put on a plate in the stove on warm.

Then we went away and did some other things until dinner. Then we came back and check our CO2 content, and how temperature affects dissolved CO2 in our simulated oceans.

Just as we predicted. The ocean in the oven was the most flat.

That is one ten year old that doesn't listen to AGW propaganda any more.

He also wants to run that experiment again all the time. I think it's just because I never let him drink Coke. lol

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb, really dumb. First, we know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. We have records of how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Second, the Milankovic cycles would barely change the temperature without the forcing of CO2. Third, we are seeing a rapid warming, exactly as the scientists have predicted.

 

[Anathema]

Honestly, as someone who is already 40 years old and has no kids.... Why the hell would I care. Nothing is going to change significantly between now and when my wife and I die. At that point, what the hell would we care?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, with an attitude like that, why don't you just find high bridge somewhere, and jump. It will make no differance to you, or the rest of the world.

 

[mamooth]

Q. According to the "Spectral Qualities" of CO2 how much of a temperature increase is expected in a closed container given the following quantities of CO2: 0PPM, 10PPM, 100PPM, 1,000PPM?

A question so vague as to be meaningless. What kind of container? Shape, material, atmosphere? What energy sources are going into it? What's the environment outside like? You can't even begin to model an answer until you know every parameter exactly.

You can, of course, predict that increasing CO2 will have some warming effect. That's a gimme. As one example, the Mythbusters experiment was a quick and dirty experiment which showed just that.

We've explained that to you before. You essentially lie by pretending you haven't seen any explanations. Those lies of yours grow old. Get some new material.

A) we have consensus, we don't need to answer your question
B) DENIER!! DIE YOU ******* DENIER!!!!
C) Jennifer Francis says, "Turn on the Weather Channel and watch CO2 at work"

Seriously, I don't expect an answer, I expect answers ranging somewhere between pooh flinging monkeys at the primate house and froth and spittle flying from lunatics in an asylum.

Watch

Ah, the irony. Right after a major meltdown, Frank accuses others of "flinging poo" and "sputtering." That's hilarious.

 

[mamooth]

I once explained this whole controversy very simply so my kid could understand it.

And misled him badly, being you fail so hard at understanding even the basics.

First I showed him the Chart that the whole theory is based on so he could understand the debate.

First failure, the theory is not in any way based on such a chart. Wow, you suck at this. Total failure, right off the bat.

Second, your chart is just wrong. Back in the real world, CO2 and temp track together within the margins of uncertainty. Your need to understand that anything from jonova is probably fudged. That should bother you, that your leaders lie to your face like that. It probably won't. You probably actually like it.

Third, even if CO2 did lead temperature in the past ... get this ... try to grasp it ... the present is not required to act like the past, given that conditions in the present are much different than conditions in the past. Your astoundingly awful logic is the equivalent of saying "forest fires were caused by lightning in the past, therefore lightning must cause all forest fires now."

After breakfast we did a simple experiment. We took a 2-liter of Coke, poured it into three glasses. One glass we put on the counter, one we put into the refrigerator, and the other we put on a plate in the stove on warm.

Then we went away and did some other things until dinner. Then we came back and check our CO2 content, and how temperature affects dissolved CO2 in our simulated oceans.

Just as we predicted. The ocean in the oven was the most flat.

Your educational techniques must certainly seem impressive to a 10-year-old. The grownups, however, are roaring with laughter over how damn stupid they are.

The oceans are _absorbing_ CO2. We _know_ this, absolutely, because the pH is going down, and because we can use isotope rations to measure the human fraction of CO2 in the air. Hence, your bizarre theory crashes hard and burns brightly.

We, of course, do support your right to indoctrinate your children with whatever religious beliefs you may hold, no matter how scientifically incorrect or bizarre they may be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dumb, really dumb. First, we know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. We have records of how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Second, the Milankovic cycles would barely change the temperature without the forcing of CO2. Third, we are seeing a rapid warming, exactly as the scientists have predicted.

^ No experiments, only insults

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. According to the "Spectral Qualities" of CO2 how much of a temperature increase is expected in a closed container given the following quantities of CO2: 0PPM, 10PPM, 100PPM, 1,000PPM?

A question so vague as to be meaningless. What kind of container? Shape, material, atmosphere? What energy sources are going into it? What's the environment outside like? You can't even begin to model an answer until you know every parameter exactly.

You can, of course, predict that increasing CO2 will have some warming effect. That's a gimme. As one example, the Mythbusters experiment was a quick and dirty experiment which showed just that.

We've explained that to you before. You essentially lie by pretending you haven't seen any explanations. Those lies of yours grow old. Get some new material.

A) we have consensus, we don't need to answer your question
B) DENIER!! DIE YOU ******* DENIER!!!!
C) Jennifer Francis says, "Turn on the Weather Channel and watch CO2 at work"

Seriously, I don't expect an answer, I expect answers ranging somewhere between pooh flinging monkeys at the primate house and froth and spittle flying from lunatics in an asylum.

Watch

Ah, the irony. Right after a major meltdown, Frank accuses others of "flinging poo" and "sputtering." That's hilarious.

To answer the pooh flinging monkey.

1. I thought it was obvious we were talking about changes in Earth atmosphere, so the container (You pick the shape because that's oh so vital): 80% N2, 19% O2, Argon, H20 and CO2 make up the difference. Energy source going in should be a bulb used in a hydroponic garden.

2. You can predict warming, but what's the relationship between CO2 and temperature, if any. Also, the Mythbuster Experiment was likely flaws as it showed over 7% CO2

No chart linking CO2 to temperature, no evidence, nothing but spew and venom

 

[mamooth]

To answer the pooh flinging monkey.

When asking people to do you a favor, it's customary not to start out by hysterically screaming insults at them. That would account for the reception you get from ... well, from everyone.

1. I thought it was obvious we were talking about changes in Earth atmosphere, so the container (You pick the shape because that's oh so vital): 80% N2, 19% O2, Argon, H20 and CO2 make up the difference. Energy source going in should be a bulb used in a hydroponic garden.

Okay. Exactly like the Mythbusters experiment, then.

2. You can predict warming, but what's the relationship between CO2 and temperature, if any. Also, the Mythbuster Experiment was likely flaws as it showed over 7% CO2

No, that's a big fib on your part, as that image was only part of the calibration. The Mythbusters experimenters flat out stated it reproduced atmospheric conditions. Exactly as you just demanded.

Therefore, the Mythbusters experiment satisfies your criteria 100%. It is precisely what you asked for here, and it showed +1.0C warming in the box with the extra 120 ppm CO2.

Since the criteria you set have been fulfilled to the letter, you should now admit you've been wrong this whole time. If you ask for an experiment again, that would obviously be the action of a pathological cult liar.

No chart linking CO2 to temperature, no evidence, nothing but spew and venom

Frank, better go change your Depends now. Oh, you weren't wearing any? Then you better go get a mop.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To answer the pooh flinging monkey.

When asking people to do you a favor, it's customary not to start out by hysterically screaming insults at them. That would account for the reception you get from ... well, from everyone.

1. I thought it was obvious we were talking about changes in Earth atmosphere, so the container (You pick the shape because that's oh so vital): 80% N2, 19% O2, Argon, H20 and CO2 make up the difference. Energy source going in should be a bulb used in a hydroponic garden.

Okay. Exactly like the Mythbusters experiment, then.

2. You can predict warming, but what's the relationship between CO2 and temperature, if any. Also, the Mythbuster Experiment was likely flaws as it showed over 7% CO2

No, that's a big fib on your part, as that image was only part of the calibration. The Mythbusters experimenters flat out stated it reproduced atmospheric conditions. Exactly as you just demanded.

Therefore, the Mythbusters experiment satisfies your criteria 100%. It is precisely what you asked for here, and it showed +1.0C warming in the box with the extra 120 ppm CO2.

Since the criteria you set have been fulfilled to the letter, you should now admit you've been wrong this whole time. If you ask for an experiment again, that would obviously be the action of a pathological cult liar.

No chart linking CO2 to temperature, no evidence, nothing but spew and venom

Frank, better go change your Depends now. Oh, you weren't wearing any? Then you better go get a mop.

We went over the Mythbuster Experiment. They're very cryptic about the level of CO2 but at 1:37 in the video they show the meter reading over 7% CO2. Unless they controlled for the increased in pressure, it could be that a 7% increase in any gas will cause a temperature increase

 

[Anathema]

Well, with an attitude like that, why don't you just find high bridge somewhere, and jump. It will make no differance to you, or the rest of the world.

If/When my life reaches a point where I no longer see any point to its continuance, that's actually pretty much what I will do. No bridges, but there are other means.

I hear all about these terrible, horrible things and how I should supposedly be so interested in them that I give away my hard earned money for them; yet when I ask how it will affect me, in my lifetime, there's rarely any useful answer. So why would I waste my time and energy and money on them?

 

[jc456]

To answer the pooh flinging monkey.

When asking people to do you a favor, it's customary not to start out by hysterically screaming insults at them. That would account for the reception you get from ... well, from everyone.

1. I thought it was obvious we were talking about changes in Earth atmosphere, so the container (You pick the shape because that's oh so vital): 80% N2, 19% O2, Argon, H20 and CO2 make up the difference. Energy source going in should be a bulb used in a hydroponic garden.

Okay. Exactly like the Mythbusters experiment, then.

2. You can predict warming, but what's the relationship between CO2 and temperature, if any. Also, the Mythbuster Experiment was likely flaws as it showed over 7% CO2

No, that's a big fib on your part, as that image was only part of the calibration. The Mythbusters experimenters flat out stated it reproduced atmospheric conditions. Exactly as you just demanded.

Therefore, the Mythbusters experiment satisfies your criteria 100%. It is precisely what you asked for here, and it showed +1.0C warming in the box with the extra 120 ppm CO2.

Since the criteria you set have been fulfilled to the letter, you should now admit you've been wrong this whole time. If you ask for an experiment again, that would obviously be the action of a pathological cult liar.

No chart linking CO2 to temperature, no evidence, nothing but spew and venom

Frank, better go change your Depends now. Oh, you weren't wearing any? Then you better go get a mop.

We've had the discussion on the mythbusters experiment before, correct?

And we've explained the problem with it.

As well, Frank asked for the increase in temperature for an exact amount of CO2 per PPM increments, which was not done in the Mythbusters' experiment. So first off, you already had the answers to your original question and second, it had nothing to do with the experiment Frank requested.

 

[jc456]

Frank, I call that a FAIL

 

[mamooth]

So you and Frank are just choosing to flat out lie about the Mythbusters experiment. No surprise there.

But since you've proudly announced you're going to lie for your cult whenever it pleases you, why should anyone bother speaking to you? After all, we all know, 100%, that you're simply going to lie in response to anything anyone says. That makes both of you a complete waste of time.

 

[jc456]

So you and Frank are just choosing to flat out lie about the Mythbusters experiment. No surprise there.

But since you've proudly announced you're going to lie for your cult whenever it pleases you, why should anyone bother speaking to you? After all, we all know, 100%, that you're simply going to lie in response to anything anyone says. That makes both of you a complete waste of time.

what is it I lied about? Please explain.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frank,
Let me answer this with science... First, we know the spectral band pass and absorption of our atmospheric gases.

Second, we also know how CO2 responds in a controlled environment using a full spectrum radiant source.

So the last remaining question is what is the light source we are going to use, what is its spectral output and how far from the source will the tube be placed. Above, The red line is EMPIRICAL OBSERVED EVIDENCE placed into the model Vs Hypothetical data used in climate modeling.

The experiment above was done with a 2,000 watt full spectrum light source, The tube was filled with argon and the parts per million of CO2 were gradually added in steps allowing the cylinder to warm to equilibrium. (one problem with this evaluation is the length of the cylinder and the temperatures at the distant ends is not representative of earths atmosphere. This makes the warming seen in the lab disproportionate to our atmosphere)

CO2 - Argon mix (room temp was maintained at 62 degrees F, cylinder is 12" in diam and 48" long), light was aimed at 70 deg towards the top of the tube and placed 16" from the tube. Three temperature sensors were placed in the tube 14" apart and 5" from each end. The gases were held at 1.5 times atmospheric pressure @ 4,250 feet above sea level)
* 0 to 50ppm we saw a rise of about 10.1 deg C which took 14 hours 35 min
* 50-100ppm we observed a rise of just 4.5 deg C which took 16.9 hours
* 100-200ppm we observed a rise of just 2.1 deg C which took 24.6 hours.
* 200-400ppm we observed a rise of just .7 deg C which took 49.8 hours.
* 400-800ppm we observed a rise of just .27 deg C which took 102.2 hours.

You will note that pure CO2 and an inert gas warm considerably slower than our atmosphere mix will. about 50% slower and 50% lower. CO2's direct affect is quite small and essentially zero above 800ppm. When we add nitrogen, oxygen, water, CO2 and other gases is when things get kind of weird.. But again, above 800ppm the effect is essentially zero as the above graph shows.

One interesting thing we did note, the time to warm decreased proportionally to the temp increase. While yet again once the tube warmed and reached equilibrium it did not warm further. When the heat was moved slightly out to 20" the temps dropped by 18% illustrating the earths axial tilt and precision (place in orbit) matter.

When you also put into perspective the ocean oscillations, winds, and seasons, also known as natural variation, the rise which could be attributed to CO2 vanishes. The warming in the lab was gradual near to far from the light source,but once equilibrium was reached it was incapable of more warming. The equal temps did not allow us to observe the cooling that would take place high in our atmosphere. We found no mid-tube warm spot which would be consistent with AGW theroy.

Without normal rise and fall convection with water vapor there are many questions unanswered. This is why a lab experiment is useless in predicting anthropogenic causes, water vapor is a positive forcing until we reach about 288ppm where it becomes a negative forcing allowing heat escape at high altitude simply by displacing other gases which hold latent heat much better..

The debate if far from over or settled...

 

[mamooth]

Billy, now explain what that meant in your own words.

Also tell us where you cribbed it from. Otherwise, it's just assumed you made it up.

And jc, you and Frank are lying about the mythbusters experiment using 7% CO2.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Let's see...if you are in Alaska, you might be ignorant enough to buy off on "gorbal warming" right now. Fortunately, most Alaskans are smarter than that. If you were anywhere on the East Coast or east of the Mississippi, you'd be hard pressed to provide evidence of "gorbal warming". "Climate change" is an absolutely normal and undeniable concept. Happens all over, all the time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, now explain what that meant in your own words.

Also tell us where you cribbed it from. Otherwise, it's just assumed you made it up.

And jc, you and Frank are lying about the mythbusters experiment using 7% CO2.

Unlike you, I do scientific work and part of this is required for a masters in atmospheric physics.. Your Mythbusters is 100% myth... at 7% of tube volume, which Mythbusters showed, the PPM would be the equivalent of 20,000ppm or 500% of current atmospheric levels assuming 6 cubic meters of gas at 1 atmosphere at sea level.