Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[deanrd]

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

So who has the data?

The same people who put Americans on the Moon.

The same people who nearly wiped out measles and polio.

The same people who brought back the midwest from the Dust Bowl.

The same people who arm our military.

The same people who put overhead satellites in place to tell us when a hurricane is coming.

The same people who develop grains that feed the world.

The same people who built nuclear weapons.

The same people who discovered evolution.

I don't mindlessly listen to scientists. I respect them based on their results. The same respect I have for scientists equals the disdain I have for the determined ignorant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

So who has the data?

The same people who put Americans on the Moon.

The same people who nearly wiped out measles and polio.

The same people who brought back the midwest from the Dust Bowl.

The same people who arm our military.

The same people who put overhead satellites in place to tell us when a hurricane is coming.

The same people who develop grains that feed the world.

The same people who built nuclear weapons.

The same people who discovered evolution.

I don't mindlessly listen to scientists. I respect them based on their results. The same respect I have for scientists equals the disdain I have for the determined ignorant.

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

Excellent! We should spend trillions because, "you know for a fact". Very convincing.

DURR...….

 

[deanrd]

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

So who has the data?

The same people who put Americans on the Moon.

The same people who nearly wiped out measles and polio.

The same people who brought back the midwest from the Dust Bowl.

The same people who arm our military.

The same people who put overhead satellites in place to tell us when a hurricane is coming.

The same people who develop grains that feed the world.

The same people who built nuclear weapons.

The same people who discovered evolution.

I don't mindlessly listen to scientists. I respect them based on their results. The same respect I have for scientists equals the disdain I have for the determined ignorant.

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

Excellent! We should spend trillions because, "you know for a fact". Very convincing.

DURR...….

That's all you read? The very first sentence?

Guess I was right about you. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

So who has the data?

The same people who put Americans on the Moon.

The same people who nearly wiped out measles and polio.

The same people who brought back the midwest from the Dust Bowl.

The same people who arm our military.

The same people who put overhead satellites in place to tell us when a hurricane is coming.

The same people who develop grains that feed the world.

The same people who built nuclear weapons.

The same people who discovered evolution.

I don't mindlessly listen to scientists. I respect them based on their results. The same respect I have for scientists equals the disdain I have for the determined ignorant.

Anyone as old as I am knows for a fact, the weather has changed.

Excellent! We should spend trillions because, "you know for a fact". Very convincing.

DURR...….

That's all you read? The very first sentence?

Guess I was right about you. Thanks for proving me right.

That's all you read? The very first sentence?

It was so moronic a basis for wasting trillions, I didn't need to go further.

 

[IanC]

guess you didn't notice that when the candle flame disappeared, the whole image was of a uniform cool blue...no changing to warmer tones...that is because it wasn't warming...

The blue background simply indicates no radiation in the range being measured.

The gas inside the tube produces no radiation that would be captured because it is not warm enough before or after it has absorbed the IR from the candle.

The misleading part of the video is using a false palette of colours that mimics the appearance of a candle flame.

A real candle gives off radiation from visible light down into IR. The screen image of the candle was produced assigning visible colours to a small range, ie 2.8-3.2 microns which has been selected for by using a 3 micron filter. CO2 has a vibration state that can absorb 3 micron radiation but the gas in the tube is at too low a temperature to produce its own 3 micron radiation. Unlike the 15 micron CO2 vibration state which is constantly producing radiation from the atmospheric energy defined by its temperature.

 

[Wuwei]

The misleading part of the video is using a false palette of colours that mimics the appearance of a candle flame.

I don't think that was misleading. A common false color standard for the output of IR imaging is generally warmer colors (red, yellow) for the hotter end and cooler colors (blue) for the cooler end. That is a natural human association.

A real candle gives off radiation from visible light down into IR. The screen image of the candle was produced assigning visible colours to a small range, ie 2.8-3.2 microns which has been selected for by using a 3 micron filter. CO2 has a vibration state that can absorb 3 micron radiation but the gas in the tube is at too low a temperature to produce its own 3 micron radiation. Unlike the 15 micron CO2 vibration state which is constantly producing radiation from the atmospheric energy defined by its temperature.

Another observation is that a hydrocarbon (candle?) was also used by Tyndall in his original experiment. He found that a black body source of heat had little observable absorption, whereas the candle had maximal absorption. The reason, which he didn't know at the time, was that the candle put out an overwhelming amount of the CO2 spectra at the far IR end of the spectrum as a product of the burning. That emission spectrum was tuned to the CO2 absorption spectrum in the tube. So it's natural that it was completely absorbed.

.

 

[IanC]

I don't think that was misleading. A common false color standard for the output of IR imaging is generally warmer colors (red, yellow) for the hotter end and cooler colors (blue) for the cooler end. That is a natural human association.

Really? You don't think it is misleading to filter out all radiation but for a tiny sliver of IR. Then manipulate that IR into looking like a candle flame with a replacement palette. Then put both the actual candle and the IR image in the same video frame so that they flicker in unison. All without explaining what they did?

Sorry, I consider that misleading and I believe most people would infer an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Crick]

A real candle gives off radiation from visible light down into IR. The screen image of the candle was produced assigning visible colours to a small range, ie 2.8-3.2 microns which has been selected for by using a 3 micron filter. CO2 has a vibration state that can absorb 3 micron radiation but the gas in the tube is at too low a temperature to produce its own 3 micron radiation. Unlike the 15 micron CO2 vibration state which is constantly producing radiation from the atmospheric energy defined by its temperature.

How do you know this Ian?

How was the IR camera able to reproduce a range of colors from the different portions of the flame if it was filtered to such a narrow range? The range of temperatures in a typical candle flame is about 800K. That would cover a spread of over 2 microns.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't think that was misleading. A common false color standard for the output of IR imaging is generally warmer colors (red, yellow) for the hotter end and cooler colors (blue) for the cooler end. That is a natural human association.

Really? You don't think it is misleading to filter out all radiation but for a tiny sliver of IR. Then manipulate that IR into looking like a candle flame with a replacement palette. Then put both the actual candle and the IR image in the same video frame so that they flicker in unison. All without explaining what they did?

Sorry, I consider that misleading and I believe most people would infer an incorrect conclusion.

I don't consider it misleading. I doubt if the demonstrator had control of the spectral response of the camera nor the camera output false color palette. He used what he had. Many FLIR cameras have a limited spectral response that starts cutting off at 15 microns.

I don't understand your point. How would you design the experiment given you had a lab camera with fixed characteristics of spectrum and color output?

 

[IanC]

A real candle gives off radiation from visible light down into IR. The screen image of the candle was produced assigning visible colours to a small range, ie 2.8-3.2 microns which has been selected for by using a 3 micron filter. CO2 has a vibration state that can absorb 3 micron radiation but the gas in the tube is at too low a temperature to produce its own 3 micron radiation. Unlike the 15 micron CO2 vibration state which is constantly producing radiation from the atmospheric energy defined by its temperature.

How do you know this Ian?

How was the IR camera able to reproduce a range of colors from the different portions of the flame if it was filtered to such a narrow range? The range of temperatures in a typical candle flame is about 800K. That would cover a spread of over 2 microns.

Like I said; I read an article by the guy who set up the demonstration. He had to scramble around to find a filter tight enough to extinguish the image of the flame.

 

[IanC]

I don't think that was misleading. A common false color standard for the output of IR imaging is generally warmer colors (red, yellow) for the hotter end and cooler colors (blue) for the cooler end. That is a natural human association.

Really? You don't think it is misleading to filter out all radiation but for a tiny sliver of IR. Then manipulate that IR into looking like a candle flame with a replacement palette. Then put both the actual candle and the IR image in the same video frame so that they flicker in unison. All without explaining what they did?

Sorry, I consider that misleading and I believe most people would infer an incorrect conclusion.

I don't consider it misleading. I doubt if the demonstrator had control of the spectral response of the camera nor the camera output false color palette. He used what he had. Many FLIR cameras have a limited spectral response that starts cutting off at 15 microns.

I don't understand your point. How would you design the experiment given you had a lab camera with fixed characteristics of spectrum and color output?

Infrared cameras typically work in the atmospheric window range of frequencies , 8-14 microns. The BBC experiment used 3 microns which necessitated a special filter.

 

[SSDD]

. He didn't claim any warming, but dupes like crick look at it and then proudly present it as unimpeachable evidence of CO2 being warmed by IR. It was obviously good enough to fool him, was it good enough to fool you too?

Absorption and emission are two sides of the same coin. Somehow you have duped yourself into believing that only emission leads to a change in the amount of energy contained within an object. Somehow you are blind to the fact that absorbing the energy contained in radiation will increase the amount of total energy in the object.

That flaw in your logic is impossible to get past.

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it to be so.

 

[SSDD]

guess you didn't notice that when the candle flame disappeared, the whole image was of a uniform cool blue...no changing to warmer tones...that is because it wasn't warming...

The blue background simply indicates no radiation in the range being measured.

The gas inside the tube produces no radiation that would be captured because it is not warm enough before or after it has absorbed the IR from the candle.

The misleading part of the video is using a false palette of colours that mimics the appearance of a candle flame.

A real candle gives off radiation from visible light down into IR. The screen image of the candle was produced assigning visible colours to a small range, ie 2.8-3.2 microns which has been selected for by using a 3 micron filter. CO2 has a vibration state that can absorb 3 micron radiation but the gas in the tube is at too low a temperature to produce its own 3 micron radiation. Unlike the 15 micron CO2 vibration state which is constantly producing radiation from the atmospheric energy defined by its temperature.

blah...blah...blah...no warming...blah...blah...blah...

Sorry ian...IR does not and can not warm air...

 

[SSDD]

I don't think that was misleading. A common false color standard for the output of IR imaging is generally warmer colors (red, yellow) for the hotter end and cooler colors (blue) for the cooler end. That is a natural human association.

Really? You don't think it is misleading to filter out all radiation but for a tiny sliver of IR. Then manipulate that IR into looking like a candle flame with a replacement palette. Then put both the actual candle and the IR image in the same video frame so that they flicker in unison. All without explaining what they did?

Sorry, I consider that misleading and I believe most people would infer an incorrect conclusion.

Crick certainly did...he believed that it was an observed example of CO2 warming...

 

[Crick]

Crick certainly did...he believed that it was an observed example of CO2 warming...

I'm afraid that is a lie. The video I posted in post #172 is titled:
"Iain Stewart demonstrates a simple experiment that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation."

Nothing is said about the gas in the tube being warmed during the demonstration though, quite obviously, it was absorbing energy from the candle which would have warmed it minutely. The video to which I linked in post #173 DOES demonstrate CO2 being warmed by infrared radiation but you have failed to bring that one up... for some odd reason.

 

[Wuwei]

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it to be so.

Absorption and re-emission is directly contrary to your quote of Dr. Happer who said re-emission is highly unlikely because of collisions.
Just which do you believe? You can't believe both.

 

[Wuwei]

Infrared cameras typically work in the atmospheric window range of frequencies , 8-14 microns. The BBC experiment used 3 microns which necessitated a special filter.

Three microns is outside the typical 8-14 range you noted. Do you have a link to the details behind Stewart's demonstration?

 

[IanC]

Infrared cameras typically work in the atmospheric window range of frequencies , 8-14 microns. The BBC experiment used 3 microns which necessitated a special filter.

Three microns is outside the typical 8-14 range you noted. Do you have a link to the details behind Stewart's demonstration?

I'm sorry but I seldom keep links at hand. This was discussed by me very early on, probably in 2010 or 2011.

I found the author to be enthusiastic and forthcoming in describing how the video was produced.

But that is a long time ago. You can try searching yourself. It may have been a BBC in-house document. I only remember the concept not the exact details.

 

[Crick]

There are comments on the video indicating a simple prism was used I don't know how that would jibe with the undistorted video. Another post commented that one needed to remember that the CO2 was not blocking the visible image but the heat being radiated; that if you put your head right next to the camera you would still clearly see the flame.

 

[SSDD]

Crick certainly did...he believed that it was an observed example of CO2 warming...

I'm afraid that is a lie. The video I posted in post #172 is titled:
"Iain Stewart demonstrates a simple experiment that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation."

And the lies just keep on coming...I asked you if you had any actual evidence that established a link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...you presented it as evidence that IR can warm CO2...why lie when the evidence of what you claimed is right there for anyone to see.