Q for the AGWCult

[Billy_Bob]

No, the video shows a 7% reading for a mystery something at an unspecified time. An honest person would not instantly declare that 7% meant the container during the experiment. A dishonest person would. Thus, you and jc do.

Meanwhile, they do say they addressed the problem of reproducing atmospheric levels of 350 ppm CO2 and 1800 ppb methane. Since that's what they say they use, an honest person would assume they did indeed use those levels.

So they set out the cases, purged them all with a non-greenhouse gas, added 350 ppm CO2 to one, 1800 ppb methane to another, and left the other two as controls with no greenhouse gases. Though there would have been water vapor inside all of them, due to the ice sculptures. I suggest you retreat to a "I asked for 120 ppm, not 350 ppm!" defense, being your previous objections are so dumb.

Again you fail... miserably..

According to the Mythbusters site and Discovery Channel , they did indeed place CO2 at 7% of atmosphere for their experiment. The point of the experiment was to show "global warming is plausible". The problem is, they had to place levels never seen on earth into the 3' x 3' x 4' boxes to obtain their results. They also stated that they had to go above current CO2 levels in order to show the plausibility.

Their original show in season 2003 was done using glass cylinders but was unsuccessful at proving significant warming vs the control cylinders. They added just enough CO2 to reach 800ppm where it had little to no effect and was then cut from airing.

I have yet to receive a reply from my email asking Discovery Channel to come clean and provide the data for all of their experiments to the general public. Also to explain why they would place 70,000ppm in an experiment knowing it has no basis in reality for the earth.

Not going to hold my breath waiting either..

 

[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.

I'm only reporting what was on the flawed mythbuster experiment. They never actually said how much co2 was in the container but at 137 in the video it showed over 7%

7.23% to be exact..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Method #1

We can simply look at percentage of atmosphere. If we determine the atmosphere within the tube is equal to 1, then the appropriate level to match today's level would to meet the same percentage of 1 as earths atmosphere contains.
View attachment 37081

So our atmosphere contains 0.04% of the whole atmosphere or the factor 1. 7% is 17,500 times greater than 0.04% OR 70,000ppm!

I have decided I will not venture into the gas molecule numbers as this shows how deceptive the Mythbusters crap was.. They used an amount of gas, in order to obtain warming, which would render the earth uninhabitable by humans. If you use molecular weight of the atoms this number increases to over 20,000 times where we are today...

This is why the CAGW fools loose... they failed at simple math.. There is no need to venture into method two...

As I can not correct this post, I need to make modification to the 17,500 and 20,000 numbers changing it to 175 to 200 times. Dam % sign... it also lowers the CO2 to 7,000ppm.

 

[jc456]

No, the video shows a 7% reading for a mystery something at an unspecified time. An honest person would not instantly declare that 7% meant the container during the experiment. A dishonest person would. Thus, you and jc do.

Meanwhile, they do say they addressed the problem of reproducing atmospheric levels of 350 ppm CO2 and 1800 ppb methane. Since that's what they say they use, an honest person would assume they did indeed use those levels.

So they set out the cases, purged them all with a non-greenhouse gas, added 350 ppm CO2 to one, 1800 ppb methane to another, and left the other two as controls with no greenhouse gases. Though there would have been water vapor inside all of them, due to the ice sculptures. I suggest you retreat to a "I asked for 120 ppm, not 350 ppm!" defense, being your previous objections are so dumb.

Well the show isn't very bright allowing that screen shot to be seen by everyone. The problem is even if they only injected 380 PPM into the chamber, the existing atmosphere also contains CO2. They never actually reveal the level inside the chamber. All we get is the screen shot off the tool at 7%. You are asking all of us to be honest and yet you give them a break on what is clear. hmmm..who is not being honest.

 

[Dot Com]

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?

denier P.O.V illustrated PERFECTLY!!! AKA- I got mine, get yours

doesn't sound very christian to me CrusaderFrank You people need to google the words "posterity" & "caretaker"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

denier P.O.V illustrated PERFECTLY!!! AKA- I got mine, get yours

doesn't sound very christian to me CrusaderFrank You people need to google the words "posterity" & "caretaker"

I made a typo and Googled "Posterior"

 

[Anathema]

doesn't sound very christian to me CrusaderFrank You people need to google the words "posterity" & "caretaker"

Not sure why you quoted my post and then directed the response to CrusaderFrank. I won't speak for him, but I am not a Christian and haven't been in MANY years.