Scientists Suggest Earth Could Be Uninhabitable In 300 Years

[RollingThunder]

And if it takes 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 and a million years to make a scenario of acidic oceans and devastating planetary warming, and we can only burn enough fossil fuels to make 5,000 gigatons of CO2 we cannot do it with burning fossil fuels....

Thank you for making it so clear.....

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

Okay so then how much would it take? How long did it take before? Over a million?....

Your fucking done fraud.... post all the garbage you want, and it will not change what you did here... YOU posted garbage that dammed your entire theory.... Nice work, between you and oldsocks you just killed the AGW bullshit here.....LOL

No, you're just too retarded to comprehend what you read. I marvel that you're able to type on a computer but I would bet that tying your own shoes is still beyond your abilities.

 

[gslack]

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

Okay so then how much would it take? How long did it take before? Over a million?....

Your fucking done fraud.... post all the garbage you want, and it will not change what you did here... YOU posted garbage that dammed your entire theory.... Nice work, between you and oldsocks you just killed the AGW bullshit here.....LOL

No, you're just too retarded to comprehend what you read. I marvel that you're able to type on a computer but I would bet that tying your own shoes is still beyond your abilities.

Hmm so whats that say about you? After all all of it was from your post you even said as much....

So then smart guy how long did it take to produce the pre-cambrian extinction? Over a million years according to your one post.... So how much CO2 did it take? Well according to your post it took 13,000-43,000 gigatons... And how much can we produce if we burn up all the fossil fuels on the planet? Well again according your source we would contribute a total of 5,000 gigatons if we burn all the fossil fuels on the planet.....

Hmm? So if we cannot even reach over 40% of that on the short end, and only about 1/9 th of that on the high end, how in the hell could we recreate that scenario?

Come on smart guy answer it once......

 

[RollingThunder]

Okay so then how much would it take? How long did it take before? Over a million?....

Your fucking done fraud.... post all the garbage you want, and it will not change what you did here... YOU posted garbage that dammed your entire theory.... Nice work, between you and oldsocks you just killed the AGW bullshit here.....LOL

No, you're just too retarded to comprehend what you read. I marvel that you're able to type on a computer but I would bet that tying your own shoes is still beyond your abilities.

So then smart guy how long did it take to produce the pre-cambrian extinction?

The article did not say how long it took to produce the extinction. It talked about how long the CO2 was being released by volcanic activity but it said nothing to indicate that the extinction happened only at the end of that time period.

So how much CO2 did it take? Well according to your post it took 13,000-43,000 gigatons...

No, that's just your retarded lack of reading ability. The article did not say it took that much to cause the extinction, it said that the amount released was in that range.

Because you're so retarded, slack-jawed, you insert your own insanity into the stuff you read. It is not what the article said though.

You have the comprehension level of a brain damaged lab rat.

 

[westwall]

I am not arguing the fact that humans have contributed to the C02. However you can not diffidently prove the it is the cause of global warming.
---------------------------

Well, if we've contributed to the CO2, then we've contributed to the warming. CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, as is easily shown in a laboratory setting. That energy has to go somewhere and while half may be re-emitted into space, the other half would go towards warming the earth. To say different would be to throw out the principle of Conservation of Energy.

konradv,

Theoretically CO2 has been proven to absorb IR radiation. In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it. Do you understand the difference?
Even with all of the parameters controlled and with the scientists able to play with all of the variables to their hearts content...they STILL havn't been abe to scientifically prove the theory. They have been trying for 100 years and still no joy. In real science that means the theory is a failure. Time to move on.

I can't make it any more simple than that buddy.

That's total bullshit, walleyed. Do you get your science info from comic books?

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

Closely related

The HITRAN Database – The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.

Great, now show the class where the temperature was raised by CO2 in an enclosed box.
Nowhere in any of these studies was that accomplished. You keep dancing around the basic problem...now answer the problem. I can show you IR absorbtion properties of several rocks and mineral types as well but they don't make the temperature rise either.

 

[westwall]

You are such a total moron, slack-jawed. You can't understand what you read because you are so stupid. You're quoting an article I posted that talked about a major extinction event millions of years ago. The article did not in any way suggest that it takes that much CO2 or that much time to create "devastating planetary warming", you flaming retard. Stop lying, troll.

Sorry Blunder but in the pantheon of trolldom you are way, way, way near the top. Take a bow old buddy

Of course you would be wrong about this too, like everything else you're deluded and confused about. No wispywalleyed, you and the slack-jawed-idiot have me beat hands down when it comes to sheer moronic trolling. You guys are the champs.

Yep that's the MO of the unwashed, denigrate and insult the people who disagree with you instead of answering basic questions. You be da champ Blunder!

 

[gslack]

No, you're just too retarded to comprehend what you read. I marvel that you're able to type on a computer but I would bet that tying your own shoes is still beyond your abilities.

So then smart guy how long did it take to produce the pre-cambrian extinction?

The article did not say how long it took to produce the extinction. It talked about how long the CO2 was being released by volcanic activity but it said nothing to indicate that the extinction happened only at the end of that time period.

So how much CO2 did it take? Well according to your post it took 13,000-43,000 gigatons...

No, that's just your retarded lack of reading ability. The article did not say it took that much to cause the extinction, it said that the amount released was in that range.

Because you're so retarded, slack-jawed, you insert your own insanity into the stuff you read. It is not what the article said though.

You have the comprehension level of a brain damaged lab rat.

Okay then tell me how much it took and how long it took then.... We can create at most 40% of the low estimate and 1/8 th of the high estimate.. So are you saying that 40% or 1/8th (either or) will cause massive extinction or out of control deadly warming and acidic oceans....

please tell us how much it will take then smart guy LOL.... BTW it was your article made the claims pal, don't cry and bullshit about it...

 

[Chris]

In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.

Key word: 'Suggest'.

And they were correct....

 

[syrenn]

In the 1970s they said parts of the earth would be uninhabitable do by the year 2000.

Key word: 'Suggest'.

And they were correct....

Not necessarily. The earth does not care about us in any way. Wildlife is coming back and thriving. Contrary to popular belief it is becoming a wildlife sanctuary.

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

BBC NEWS | Europe | Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation

Chernobyl Area Becomes Wildlife Haven - washingtonpost.com

 

[Chris]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[gslack]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

My posting? Where is the link for that claim?

Again try to be honest chris..... Show the link to me posting this article... If I did post it I do not remember it so please enlighten me if I did... Remember though me commenting on someone else posting it is not me posting it.....

Now I also fail to see the relevance of this article to this debate.... Again enlighten me....

 

[Chris]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

My posting? Where is the link for that claim?

Again try to be honest chris..... Show the link to me posting this article... If I did post it I do not remember it so please enlighten me if I did... Remember though me commenting on someone else posting it is not me posting it.....

Now I also fail to see the relevance of this article to this debate.... Again enlighten me....

I was referring to the previous post by syrenn.

 

[gslack]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

My posting? Where is the link for that claim?

Again try to be honest chris..... Show the link to me posting this article... If I did post it I do not remember it so please enlighten me if I did... Remember though me commenting on someone else posting it is not me posting it.....

Now I also fail to see the relevance of this article to this debate.... Again enlighten me....

I was referring to the previous post by syrenn.

Well if you plan on debating two people at once please use the quote feature.....

 

[RollingThunder]

konradv,

Theoretically CO2 has been proven to absorb IR radiation. In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it. Do you understand the difference?
Even with all of the parameters controlled and with the scientists able to play with all of the variables to their hearts content...they STILL havn't been abe to scientifically prove the theory. They have been trying for 100 years and still no joy. In real science that means the theory is a failure. Time to move on.

I can't make it any more simple than that buddy.

That's total bullshit, walleyed. Do you get your science info from comic books?

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Great, now show the class where the temperature was raised by CO2 in an enclosed box.

I would not be at all surprised to learn that you live in an enclosed box all the time (it would explain a lot) but most of us live on the surface of a planet with a big atmosphere filling the sky overhead and out to all sides. That fact makes your question, in light of the papers I showed you, very silly and rather pointless for reasons of physics that are probably beyond you. Those papers I cited are very relevant to the warming effect that CO2 has on our atmosphere but, like a good little brainwashed denier cult troll, you want an enclosed box. LOL. So I'll deal with your question as is. I'm not sure why you are denying the existence of this experiment as it has been performed tens of thousands of times. Is this fallacious belief that the experiment has never happened like some sort of religious dogma of your cult or something? It is a standard experiment in many high school and college physics classes. I googled up lots of sites like this in a half a second so if you don't like this one, try another one. Since you have such dogma inspired doubts about this experiment, I thought it would be nice to give you the chance to perform it yourself just so you can be sure. LOL

Simple experiment showing that more CO2 in an atmospheric mix absorbs more energy from light and heats the air. I hope you can stand the shock of watching one of your cherished myths get blown away like a house of cards in a hurricane. LOL.

This is a standard educational website, done, I think, by the Virginia K-12 educational system, here.
It is a cached HTML version of a PDF document. Here is the lab part, which starts about a third of the way down the page.

EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 195

GREENHOUSE EFFECT—LAB ACTIVITY

Materials and Equipment Required

• Xplorer GLX • beaker, 500-mL

• PASPORT Temperature Probe

• 1/8” vinyl tubing (0.5 m)

• PASPORT CO2 Sensor • Erlenmeyer flask, 125-mL

• Small Tripod Base & Rod • 1-hole stopper (for flask)

• Three Finger Clamp • foam insulating lid

• black construction paper

• dry ice (50 g)

• clamp or clothes pin

• insulated mitt

• 150-W incandescent light source

• protective gear

• plastic tubing connector nib (2)

Safety Notes Wear protective gear at all times (gloves, goggles, etc.).

Avoid contact of dry ice with skin and eyes. Handle the dry ice with an insulated mitt. Dry ice can burn your skin.

Pre-Lab

Question

Which test situation will cause heat from the lamp to be retained longer—with air only or with air plus added CO2?

Procedure GLX Setup

1. Plug the PASPORT Temperature Probe and the PASPORT CO2 Sensor into the Xplorer GLX.

2. Use the arrow keys ( ) to highlight the Flash folder, select the Flash folder (press ), use the arrow keys to highlight the file, and then open (press F1) the GLX configuration file entitled

15 Greenhouse Effect CF

3. Open the Table display (press , F1).

Note: The file has been configured to collect data once every second.

196 EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

GREENHOUSE EFFECT—LAB ACTIVITY

Procedure,

continued

Equipment Setup

CO2 Sensor

Temperature

Probe

plastic tubing

connector nib


foam insulating lid

beaker with

black construction paper

tubing

Air Without Added Carbon Dioxide Gas

1. Cut a piece of black construction paper so it fits in the 1-L

beaker.

2. Place the foam insulating lid on the top of the beaker.

3. Cut a hole in the top of the lid so the CO2 Sensor makes a snug fit.

4. Press the Temperature Probe through the lid, creating another hole.

5. Create a third hole in the foam insulating lid for the plastic tubing connector nib.

6. Support the GLX with the Three Finger Clamp on the rod stand to maintain the proper positioning of the GLX above the setup.

7. Using a ruler, place the light source 6 inches from the beaker.

Record Data

1. Turn on the light, wait for 30 seconds, and press the Start/Stop

( ) key to begin recording data.

2. Collect data for 5 minutes. Turn off the light. Continue recording data for 20 minutes. Press the Start/Stop key to stop recording data.


EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 197

GREENHOUSE EFFECT—LAB ACTIVITY

Procedure,

continued

Air With Added Carbon Dioxide Gas

Equipment Setup

1. Carefully take the rubber stopper out of the Erlenmeyer flask, put several pieces of dry ice into the flask, and put the stopper back into the flask.

Important: Use the insulated mitt to handle the dry ice. Important: Do not move or bump the rest of the equipment setup.

Record Data

1. Turn on the light, wait for 30 seconds, and press the Start/Stop

( ) key to begin recording data.

2. When the carbon dioxide concentration levels off, put the clamp on the tubing to prevent any further addition of CO2. Note: The purpose of this step is to isolate the beaker from the cold flask.

3. Collect data for 5 minutes. Turn off the light. Continue recording data for 20 minutes. Press the Start/Stop key to stop recording data.

Note: You can rename your runs to reflect the test situation using the following process:

1. Press the select key, use the arrow keys to navigate to the Run label, and select it.

2. On the Run menu, use the down-arrow key to navigate to Rename Run, and select it. Key in the appropriate label, such as with added CO2, and press the OK key (F1).

3. To rename the next data run, select the Run label and select the next run you want to rename. Repeat the renaming process.

4. Follow your teacher’s directions for cleaning up your work space.

Analyze

1. Open the Graph display (press , F1).

Result: The Graph display opens displaying Temperature for 2

runs.

2. Press the select key ( ), use the arrow keys ( ) to highlight the first Run #, select it ( ), use the down arrow to highlight the run for the air-only test situation, and select it.

198 EXPLORATIONS IN EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

GREENHOUSE EFFECT—LAB ACTIVITY

Procedure,

continued

Repeat for the second Run #, and select the run for the air plus

CO2 test situation.

Result: The Temperature vs. Time graphs for your 2 runs of data will be displayed.

3. Make a sketch of the graphed data and label your graph.

4. Press the select key ( ), use the arrow keys ( ) to highlight the Temperature on the x axis, select it, use the arrow key to highlight CO2 Concentration, and select it. Result: The CO2 Concentration vs. Time graphs for your 2 runs of data will be displayed.

5. Make a sketch of the graphed data and label your graph.

6. Save your GLX file (press , select Data Files, press F2).

Result: Your GLX file will be saved in the RAM folder.

Note: Your teacher may ask you to rename your file so you can find it later. If so, use the following procedure:

1. Select the Files menu (press F4) and select Rename.

2. Key in the new name, and press the Save key (F2).

Analysis/ Synthesis Questions

Nowhere in any of these studies was that accomplished. You keep dancing around the basic problem...now answer the problem. I can show you IR absorbtion properties of several rocks and mineral types as well but they don't make the temperature rise either.

So you're wrong again, CO2 does indeed "make the temperature rise".

 

[syrenn]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, but the point is life. I did not say human life. In geologic time humans have only been a here for an instant. Humans will not be here till the end of time. However Life will go on.

 

[gslack]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, but the point is life. I did not say human life. In geologic time humans have only been a here for an instant. Humans will not be here till the end of time. However Life will go on.

Hey sy would you look at the endless list of crap that troll posts? LOL, looks like a recipe for bullshit pasta with nonsense sauce... he is one of oldsocks proxy army..... Trying to debate the idiot is not possible....

 

[RollingThunder]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, but the point is life. I did not say human life. In geologic time humans have only been a here for an instant. Humans will not be here till the end of time. However Life will go on.

Are you fucking insane, you delusional pinhead? You're OK with the extinction of the human race as long as "life" survives? Who the hell cares about "geological time" when it comes to the deaths of billions of people? Is it because you're already brain dead that you just don't care about dying or the death and suffering our energy choices are creating for future generations? In a long list of dumbfuck denier cultists, you have got to be one of the most idiotic and deranged. You and the slack-jawed-idiot are a matched set, I guess.

 

[syrenn]

Are you fucking insane, you delusional pinhead? You're OK with the extinction of the human race as long as "life" survives? Who the hell cares about "geological time" when it comes to the deaths of billions of people? Is it because you're already brain dead that you just don't care about dying or the death and suffering our energy choices are creating for future generations? In a long list of dumbfuck denier cultists, you have got to be one of the most idiotic and deranged. You and the slack-jawed-idiot are a matched set, I guess.

The earth will become to hot for humans with or without our help. How hard is that to understand? Changes in earths temperature will occur no matter what we do or don't do.

So am I alright with the extinction of humans. NO. But is an eventuality we cannot escape.

 

[westwall]

From your own posting...

"Radiation levels remain far too high for human habitation..."

20 years after meltdown, life returns to Chernobyl - Europe, World - The Independent

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, but the point is life. I did not say human life. In geologic time humans have only been a here for an instant. Humans will not be here till the end of time. However Life will go on.

Are you fucking insane, you delusional pinhead? You're OK with the extinction of the human race as long as "life" survives? Who the hell cares about "geological time" when it comes to the deaths of billions of people? Is it because you're already brain dead that you just don't care about dying or the death and suffering our energy choices are creating for future generations? In a long list of dumbfuck denier cultists, you have got to be one of the most idiotic and deranged. You and the slack-jawed-idiot are a matched set, I guess.

Blunder,

It's the AGW crowd's proposed energy controls that will certainly result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. The control of electricity is now a control on life. Electricity allows the pumping of clean water, the treatment of sewage etc. Eliminate that and the population must fall because it will no longer be able to sustain itself. The rapidity of its fall is what we are talking about now.

 

[RollingThunder]

In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it.

So, pinhead, did you do the experiment I showed you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

 

[westwall]

In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it.

So, pinhead, did you do the experiment I showed you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp. Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box. I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.