Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[polarbear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.

you're an idiot.

the bottle is capped to represent our atmosphere, my-fuggin-gaaawd your Neanderthals are dumb

You are the one who is the idiot here. No matter how often it`s pointed out how and from where CO2 absorbs IR you keep coming back here with CO2 in a bottle which is directly irradiated with a heat lamp.

How many times have I told you now (???) that no skeptic with a science background ever disputed that CO2 absorbs IR at the 15 µm "window"hich is the only spectral region where the other IR absorbers do not absorb.

The entire argument since AGW has been studied is not if CO2 absorbs IR !!!....which is the only thing any of these bottled up CO2 under a heat lamp are addressing.
Why is it that they even bother. We (analytical Chemists) have known that long before any of these stupid CO2 in a bottle experiments were done.

The argument is if there is a net gain of energy ...and exact numbers by how much ...if sunlight first has to make it through the entire atmosphere (which does absorb IR) and then, if what is left of the energy, mostly in the visible and UV range is actually converted to long wave IR.
No skeptic disputes that stage of the process either.
But that`s where the disagreements are already starting.
And for good reasons
Because that varies wildly from place to place due to albedo, angle of incidence etc. and (exactly) how much of the incident sunlight is actually converted to IR in the 15 µm spectral region by the surface.

Again nobody with a background in science "denies" that CO2 absorbs IR from that portion and re-radiates some of it back down.

The question is exactly how much energy that would be.
Why "exactly" ?...because we do need exact numbers if we want to predict temperature increase over long time periods.

Only total dimwits like you would now cite CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations to answer to how much that would be exactly.

And that is the reason why nobody associated with any of the computer models the IPCC is using, makes any reference to any of these childish greenhouse gas demonstrations you keep posting here

What they do in any of these computer model simulations is at first they calculate the energy total a black body generates at 15 µm.
In order to do that you would first have to know the exact temperature of that black body.

And that is where skeptics also are not convinced that the models are correct....why not?
Because as with the first stage this temperature also varies wildly from place to place and with time.

Nothing could be easier than proving the IPCC models, their calculations and the numbers they come up with as "settled science" to be woefully wrong.
It requires no effort from skeptics to prove that, all it takes is one look at the results of these calculations and how much they diverge from reality.
Everybody who is involved in these complex calculations is aware of this fact...and are trying their best to solve this problem

Only total morons like you would conclude that kiddie experiment demonstrations how CO2 gets warmer in a bottle under a heat lamp solve the problems that experts in the field with a huge budget have not been able to solve.


.

 

[G.T.]

Oh herdeeederr

Garsh

 

[Crick]

Polar Bear, doesn't your theory, that none of the energy absorbed by CO2 ever reaches the Earth's surface required that the CO2 never reradiate the energy it has absorbed?

Now SSDD claims that this happens because SSDD claims that cold surfaces simply do not radiate towards warm surfaces - not that the balance of radiative transfer will always be from hot to cold, but that a completely unknown and apparently unknowable magical mechanism PREVENTS cold surfaces from radiating towards warmer surfaces. Are you with SSDD or not?

Now I'm not sure what SSDD (or you) think happens to the CO2 in the upper atmosphere that you believe is absorbing all the sun's energy in those two bands. I would think that in your world they would quickly get very hot. And then, being very hot, that even in SSDD's world, they would be able to reradiate in all directions.

What do you think?

1) Do you believe CO2 can reradiate heat energy it has absorbed?
2) Do you believe it can reradiate it downward??

And if you answered yes to both those questions, please explain again how it is that that absorption doesn't warm the atmosphere and the planet underneath it.

As to heat of compression, what would be causing the CO2 bearing bottle to get more compressed than the one without? Could it be the additional thermal energy absorbed? Could it be that the increase in pressure in all the experiment's bottles would be precisely proportional to their absolute temperatures?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Idiot. Complete idiot.

Pricky, while I admire your willingness to admit that you are ******* stupid, you still need to face facts:

You aren't smart enough to be a complete idiot.

 

[Crick]

It's becoming difficult to keep saying it. You're smart enough to know how often you've been wrong here. So is everyone else. Continuing to pretend otherwise doesn't help.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's becoming difficult to keep saying it. You're smart enough to know how often you've been wrong here. So is everyone else. Continuing to pretend otherwise doesn't help.

LOL

That's it?

You're too smart for us?

LOL.

And I thought Wry Catcher was Freddo

 

[Crick]

Try to follow the basics. I didn't say anything about myself, did I. I was talking about the lovely Ilar. It would apply equally as well to you though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try to follow the basics. I didn't say anything about myself, did I. I was talking about the lovely Ilar. It would apply equally as well to you though.

Sure, Freddo.

How's the Casino business?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that they STILL haven't provided that one experiment that shows how a 100-120PPM in CO2 will raise temperature let alone cause flood, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

 

[orogenicman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.

you're an idiot.

the bottle is capped to represent our atmosphere, my-fuggin-gaaawd your Neanderthals are dumb

He is, isn't he?

 

[orogenicman]

Seems like old rocks got his old rocks in a vice. Has cricket responding for him.

Hey old rocks, I'm here most any day, you give me the experiment that shows 120PPM increases temperatures, and I'll apologize to each and every one of you. But now, you are just an old rock!

Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a couple of tablets of alka seltzer reacting in a closed vessel can raise the air temperature in the vessel by 9 degrees? In 45 minutes? It's an easy enough thing to weed out. Just place another bottle with the alka seltzer reacting in water in a closed vessel away from the light source in a constant temperature environment and see if the air temperature inside rises 9 degrees in 45 minutes? I eagerly await your results (this should be good).

 

[SSDD]

you're an idiot.

the bottle is capped to represent our atmosphere, my-fuggin-gaaawd your Neanderthals are dumb

You are aware, aren't you, that there is a difference between a closed system and an open system? Exactly where should I look in the sky to see the cap? Matter and energy can enter and exit our atmosphere....in that experiment, matter can't leave the bottle which is why the CO2 builds up pressure and warms...see the ideal gas laws.

c02 doesn't just freely leave the atmosphere dunce, hence the closed system. It takes close to 2 years.

Lets see if we can make this even more simple for you since it is obvious that you lack even the basic knowledge required to understand what is happening in that bottle. Forget the thermometer for a minute. Replace the thermometer with a pressure gauge. Repeat the experiment. The pressure in the bottle with the CO2 increases.

Now refer to the ideal gas law....PV=nRT. Increase pressure while everything else remains the same and the temperature will increase. The bottle with the CO2 gets warmer because of pressure, not because CO2 absorbs and emits IR. Put a vent in the bottle so the pressure doesn't increase and the temperature in the bottle will not increase.

 

[SSDD]

Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.

you're an idiot.

the bottle is capped to represent our atmosphere, my-fuggin-gaaawd your Neanderthals are dumb

He is, isn't he?

The very idea that you have any formal education in any science is absolutely laughable. Are you even aware of the ideal gas laws? What do you think happens to the temperature of a gas under pressure?

 

[SSDD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a couple of tablets of alka seltzer reacting in a closed vessel can raise the air temperature in the vessel by 9 degrees? In 45 minutes? It's an easy enough thing to weed out. Just place another bottle with the alka seltzer reacting in water in a closed vessel away from the light source in a constant temperature environment and see if the air temperature inside rises 9 degrees in 45 minutes? I eagerly await your results (this should be good).

Try the experiment with any gas that is heavier than air under pressure whether it is a so called greenhouse gas or not. Pressure is causing the difference in the temperatures in the bottles, not specifically CO2.

Familiarize yourself with the term...heat of compression, then perhaps you will understand what the experiment is demonstrating.

 

[orogenicman]

Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.

What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a couple of tablets of alka seltzer reacting in a closed vessel can raise the air temperature in the vessel by 9 degrees? In 45 minutes? It's an easy enough thing to weed out. Just place another bottle with the alka seltzer reacting in water in a closed vessel away from the light source in a constant temperature environment and see if the air temperature inside rises 9 degrees in 45 minutes? I eagerly await your results (this should be good).

Try the experiment with any gas that is heavier than air under pressure whether it is a so called greenhouse gas or not. Pressure is causing the difference in the temperatures in the bottles, not specifically CO2.

Familiarize yourself with the term...heat of compression, then perhaps you will understand what the experiment is demonstrating.

You really should re-read my previous post:

Are you honestly going to tell me that you believe that a couple of tablets of alka seltzer reacting in a closed vessel can raise the air temperature in the vessel by 9 degrees? In 45 minutes? It's an easy enough thing to weed out. Just place another bottle with the alka seltzer reacting in water in a closed vessel away from the light source in a constant temperature environment and see if the air temperature inside rises 9 degrees in 45 minutes? I eagerly await your results (this should be good).

That is your claim (the bolded). You really need to try to back up your silly claims with verifiable facts.

 

[Crick]

I have a couple points for you SiD.

The heat of compression occurs only as the pressure is raised. After that is accomplished, that heat radiates away and is not renewed. Any increased temperature discernible after a reasonable amount of time has passed is NOT due to compression.

Thinking that "heat of compression" (or any of the ideal gas laws) is some sort of advanced or arcane bit of science that we have overlooked - much less the hundreds of thousands of scientists that fully accept the greenhouse effect - is truly ignorant. That compressing a gas raises its temperature is something taught in the 7th grade. Failing to understand that it does not apply to this situation is either a surprising ignorance or a choice to reject the mainstream whether supported by the facts or not. Take your pick.

And, yes, the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law and all of thermodynamics is statistics

 

[polarbear]

Polar Bear, doesn't your theory, that none of the energy absorbed by CO2 ever reaches the Earth's surface required that the CO2 never reradiate the energy it has absorbed?

Now SSDD claims that this happens because SSDD claims that cold surfaces simply do not radiate towards warm surfaces - not that the balance of radiative transfer will always be from hot to cold, but that a completely unknown and apparently unknowable magical mechanism PREVENTS cold surfaces from radiating towards warmer surfaces. Are you with SSDD or not?

Now I'm not sure what SSDD (or you) think happens to the CO2 in the upper atmosphere that you believe is absorbing all the sun's energy in those two bands. I would think that in your world they would quickly get very hot. And then, being very hot, that even in SSDD's world, they would be able to reradiate in all directions.

What do you think?

1) Do you believe CO2 can reradiate heat energy it has absorbed?
2) Do you believe it can reradiate it downward??

And if you answered yes to both those questions, please explain again how it is that that absorption doesn't warm the atmosphere and the planet underneath it.

As to heat of compression, what would be causing the CO2 bearing bottle to get more compressed than the one without? Could it be the additional thermal energy absorbed? Could it be that the increase in pressure in all the experiment's bottles would be precisely proportional to their absolute temperatures?

It`s not "my theory"...!!!
First off I`m a chemical engineer and have done IR, UV and atomic absorption spectroscopy and just about any trace analysis you care to name while most of you were still in diapers.
So I do know how absorption works.
It`s not a theory anyway but has been a confirmed physics law long before I was born.
Over and over again I have said here that there is no question if CO2 absorbs IR at very specific wavelengths.
There is also no question if it re-radiates either .
Also there is no question if a warm object cools at a slower rate if it is shielded in any way, no matter if it`s shielded by a solid, a liquid or a gas.
The question is by how much !...in terms of watts per ppm CO2 per path length and atmospheric pressure.
All of that has been determined and we do know the exact molar extinction rate for CO2 at every wavelength it can absorb....but there is no way you can determine that with bottled up CO2, a heat lamp and a thermometer in other words if it`s done properly adhering to A.S.T.M with a Parr calorimeter or "DTC" (differential thermal calorimetry).
It takes a high end IR spectrophotometer with a cuvette of a precise pathlength to do a quantitative analysis for a gas for starters.
Cuvettes like these:
Infrared Grade Quartz Cells and Cuvettes | FTIR Liquid Transmission Cells

To get the exact molar extinction rate you also have to know the gas pressure in that cuvette accurate at to least to within 1 Torr and also the precise temperature the gas is at.
Why?
Because the molar extinction depends on how many CO2 molecules were in the path of the "analytical beam".
Gas expands when it gets warmer and if you allow for expansion then you have less molecules per volume in that cuvette.
That`s why everybody who does a quantitative IR spectroscopic gas analysis uses cuvettes that have a gas inlet and an outlet and the gas which is measured flows through.
That flow has to be carefully controlled so that the cuvette does not build back pressure which would increase % absorption.
How would I know?
Because I was the one who had to calibrate these instruments in the lab near the North Pole.
I posted these pictures already here over a year ago when people just like you kept posting the same CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations.

(In the lab on the left side of the bench , that`s a "GLC" (= gas- chromathograph) and the IR spec. is at the far end of the lab )

And this is the building where it`s at:

Anyway if you don`t believe me then Google how these labs do CO2 by quantitative IR spectroscopy.
Feeding the gas into the cuvette is a major problem, because it`s pumped from the sample container and that pump is a peristaltic pump.
That`s a set of rollers which squeeze a plastic tube....and the IR detector at the other end can register even these minute pressure pulses.
H2O vapor is another major error source even at the so called 15 µm "window". That`s why everybody who does this analysis passes the gas through a moisture trap before measuring %absorption (or the log function of it, the absorbance) per ppm molar.

All these factors have been taken in consideration and we do have precise numbers.
The problem is how to use these numbers in a computer model that can calculate for different atmospheric pressures and temperatures from the molar extinction rates to get an accurate overall energy budget for radiative cooling for the entire planet.
You are aware how the IPCC computer models attempt to do that or are you not ?
They all use moisture free average molar ppm at standard pressure, and then plug in the molar extinction rate for molar ppm and with that they calculate the radiative energy budget for the entire planet.

And this is what the entire scientific debate is all about.

Because in the real world outside the lab barometric pressure humidity etc etc varies all over the place and varies significantly.

The other thing that varies significantly is surface temperature which is the infrared light source that the CO2 near the surface absorbs.

Imagine if you can how frustrating it would be if you are supposed to determine IR absorption with a spectrophotometer if the infrared source of your instrument is not a constant.
It`s called "lamp drift" and has to be painstakenly compensated for.

If you understand all of what I have been saying here and what I have been saying over and over again before then you may understand how difficult the task is to write the algorithms for a climate computer model that does not fail miserably....as all the ones we do have to date have failed.

If you still think that a demonstration with CO2 in a bottle and a heat lamp can furnish data for a better and more accurate set of calculations in any of the program lines then go ahead and tell the IPCC.

These class room demonstrations serve no other purpose than to demonstrate to school children who have no idea whatsoever what infrared light is, how it`s absorbed and what happens if it is absorbed.

They are of no interest or in any way useful for any scientists pro- or con- the energy budget and the numbers the IPCC chose to use.

 

[IanC]

I agree with polarbear's reasonable description of lab procedures and mechanisms for testing. You don't have to go to the far north to check it out, your local hospital lab will tell you the same thing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If you are out at a beach one fine day tossing bread crumbs up at the seagulls, and then some asshole tosses an Alka Seltzer tablet at the diving throng of birds, a poor seagull might very well swallow the tablet whole.

Birds apparently cannot fart.

So the expanding CO2 inside the bird's stomach would almost certainly kill the poor creature in a very painful way. {Think "Bang!"}

CO2 is a murderer.

Maybe we should tax it.

-- excerpt from a new Presidential Advice Memo?

 

[Crick]

Umm... your lab building appears to be a good ways north, but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole. It's just a little too dry.

I doubt you were doing this work while I was in diapers.

It`s not "my theory"...!!!

That no IR penetrates past the uppermost layers of the atmosphere due to CO2 absorption? I'd say it was.

First off I`m a chemical engineer and have done IR, UV and atomic absorption spectroscopy and just about any trace analysis you care to name while most of you were still in diapers.

Yesterday you were an analytical chemist. Close, but not quite the same thing. What degree do you have?

So I do know how absorption works.

But I've gotten the impression you believe the people doing the research being used by the IPCC DON'T know how absorption works. Is that an accurate statement?

It`s not a theory anyway but has been a confirmed physics law long before I was born.

How about spelling out preciselly what we're talking about here, because I thought we were talking about the contention that NO IR reaches the surface of the Earth and that would be something NOT confirmed by physics long before you were born.

Over and over again I have said here that there is no question if CO2 absorbs IR at very specific wavelengths.

I think you know specifically what's being addressed here. How many times have we seen "temperature leads CO2" and "CO2 cannot control climate" and a dozen other worthless diatribes along these lines. The point under debate is whether or not the greenhouse effect is correctly understood and is therefore responsible for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

There is also no question if it re-radiates either.
Also there is no question if a warm object cools at a slower rate if it is shielded in any way, no matter if it`s shielded by a solid, a liquid or a gas.

I was hoping you'd directly address SSDD's understanding of radiative heat transfer, but this will do for the purposes of this conversation. There was no question that I was aware of concerning shielding, but whether an object of some given temperature radiates towards an object of a higher temperature.

The question is by how much!...in terms of watts per ppm CO2 per path length and atmospheric pressure.

The molar absorbance of CO2 is, as you've noted, a known value. So the question is not how much for CO2 but how much takes place in our atmsosphere.

All of that has been determined and we do know the exact molar extinction rate for CO2 at every wavelength it can absorb....but there is no way you can determine that with bottled up CO2, a heat lamp and a thermometer in other words if it`s done properly adhering to A.S.T.M with a Parr calorimeter or "DTC" (differential thermal calorimetry).
It takes a high end IR spectrophotometer with a cuvette of a precise pathlength to do a quantitative analysis for a gas for starters.

You're being ridiculous. The purpose of the experiments shown was simply to demonstrate that the presence of CO2 - in the range it exists in our atmosphere - can cause added warming.

Cuvettes like these:

Very impressive.

To get the exact molar extinction rate you also have to know the gas pressure in that cuvette accurate at to least to within 1 Torr and also the precise temperature the gas is at.

But that wasn't the purpose of the experiments shown.

Why?

No one cares.

Because the molar extinction depends on how many CO2 molecules were in the path of the "analytical beam". Gas expands when it gets warmer and if you allow for expansion then you have less molecules per volume in that cuvette. That`s why everybody who does a quantitative IR spectroscopic gas analysis uses cuvettes that have a gas inlet and an outlet and the gas which is measured flows through.

Well, then, if "everybody" does it, there's no problem with the data everyone's currently using, is there.

That flow has to be carefully controlled so that the cuvette does not build back pressure which would increase % absorption.
How would I know?

Seriously. No one cares.

Because I was the one who had to calibrate these instruments in the lab near the North Pole.

As we've heard over and over and over again. Really.

I posted these pictures already here over a year ago

Yes you did. And we saw them then. And they haven't changed.

when people just like you kept posting the same CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations.

Then perhaps you should have told your denier brethren to stop insisting that no experiment existed which would demonstrate CO2's ability to increase temperature through IR absorption. You obviously knew those statements to be false, yet I have not ONCE seen you voice the SLIGHTEST opposition. Why not?

Anyway if you don`t believe me then Google how these labs do CO2 by quantitative IR spectroscopy.

I did it myself back in school. But I'd like to make a point here. One does NOT conduct quantitative IR spectroscopy in order to measure the absorption spectra or the molar extinction coefficients of CO2 or any other gas. IR spectroscopy USES known values for those parameters to do spectroscopic analysis of samples - identifying the components of unknown mixtures or samples.

Feeding the gas into the cuvette is a major problem, because it`s pumped from the sample container and that pump is a peristaltic pump.

Really, again, no one cares

That`s a set of rollers which squeeze a plastic tube....

Really? Wow.

and the IR detector at the other end can register even these minute pressure pulses.
H2O vapor is another major error source even at the so called 15 µm "window". That`s why everybody who does this analysis passes the gas through a moisture trap before measuring %absorption (or the log function of it, the absorbance) per ppm molar.

And, again, you say everyone does it - no one makes this plebian mistake. So this isn't a problem with the data being used by the world's researchers. Excellent.

All these factors have been taken in consideration and we do have precise numbers.

Bravo.

The problem is how to use these numbers in a computer model that can calculate for different atmospheric pressures and temperatures from the molar extinction rates to get an accurate overall energy budget for radiative cooling for the entire planet.

Yes. And this question involves climate modeling: a topic about which you and I have NO expertise.

You are aware how the IPCC computer models attempt to do that or are you not ?
They all use moisture free average molar ppm at standard pressure, and then plug in the molar extinction rate for molar ppm and with that they calculate the radiative energy budget for the entire planet.

I would very much like a link inside IPCC.CH demonstrating this contention to be true.

The other thing that varies significantly is surface temperature which is the infrared light source that the CO2 near the surface absorbs. Imagine if you can how frustrating it would be if you are supposed to determine IR absorption with a spectrophotometer if the infrared source of your instrument is not a constant. It`s called "lamp drift" and has to be painstakenly compensated for.

I think you have overstretched the analogies between your lab experience and the science of creating accurate climate models. Again, I would like to see some good evidence that what you are saying about the climate models upon which the IPCC relies is true. Without it, I find it difficult to believe such factors are not accounted for.

If you understand all of what I have been saying here and what I have been saying over and over again before then you may understand how difficult the task is to write the algorithms for a climate computer model that does not fail miserably....as all the ones we do have to date have failed.

I do understand everything you've said. I do not yet believe everything you've said, but you can cure that with the right evidence. As to the success of the models, their failure to predict the hiatus is not grounds for thowing them all out. Their hindcasting has been excellent as have their forecast aside from that single flaw - and it is a flaw from which they ALL suffer. Besides, there is still NO climate model that can recreate the behavior of our climate for the last 150 years that does not assume global warming from the greenhouse effect expressed on human GHG emissions. None.
That tends to make your complaints about their accuracy more of a political whine than a meaningful observation.

If you still think that a demonstration with CO2 in a bottle and a heat lamp can furnish data for a better and more accurate set of calculations in any of the program lines then go ahead and tell the IPCC.

Who the **** ever said it would? The demonstration was for idiots like Skookerasshole, jc456, CrusaderFrank and SSDD who have claimed - with NO opposition from you - that it was impossible to demonstrate any warming from CO2. How about SSDD reliance on the "heat of compression"? Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense? If not, why not?

These class room demonstrations serve no other purpose than to demonstrate to school children who have no idea whatsoever what infrared light is, how it`s absorbed and what happens if it is absorbed.

I agree that the target there, as well as here, was those with a schoolchild education. But the demonstrations in every case involved the interaction between IR and CO2. You cannot deny that the effect demonstrated was caused by the presence of the gas.

They are of no interest or in any way useful for any scientists pro- or con- the energy budget and the numbers the IPCC chose to use.

Again, no one suggested any, *******, such thing. When you take this tack, all I can conclude is that you have no valid criticisms.


What a surprise.

QUESTIONS

1) First off I`m a chemical engineer...

Yesterday you were an analytical chemist. Close, but not quite the same thing. What degree do you have?

2) But I've gotten the impression you believe the people doing the research being used by the IPCC DON'T know how absorption works. Is that an accurate statement?

3) How about spelling out precisely what we're talking about here, because I thought we were talking about the contention that NO IR reaches the surface of the Earth

4) How many times have we seen "temperature leads CO2" and "CO2 cannot control climate" and a dozen other worthless diatribes along these lines.

5) Then perhaps you should have told your denier brethren to stop insisting that no experiment existed which would demonstrate CO2's ability to increase temperature through IR absorption. You obviously knew those statements to be false, yet I have not ONCE seen you voice the SLIGHTEST opposition. Why not?

6) I would very much like a link inside IPCC.CH demonstrating this contention (constant, dry conditions assumed) to be true.

7) Again, I would like to see some good evidence that what you are saying (that IPCC models do not take surface temperature into account regarding IR reradiation) about the climate models upon which the IPCC relies is true.

8) How about SSDD's reliance on the "heat of compression"? Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense?

8a) If not, why not?