As to validity, my glee at seeing this accomplished by Mythbusters is due to the lack of scientific sophistication required to demonstrate a physical process you have all declaimed as physically impossible.
Which goes to show that
you havent` got the slightest clue how AGW is supposed to work:
Global warming - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Solar radiation at the frequencies of
visible light largely
passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a
greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by
convection
So how is this experiment or any of the other crap posted on Youtube duplicating that?
All these idiotic experiments do show is that you can heat bottled up CO2 with a 1570 foot candles floodlight ...(that`s ~ 25 watts per m^2 !).
Nobody ever disputed that CO2 can`t absorb IR. What is being disputed is if a little over 1 watt per m^2 re-radiated by the CO2 at
15 µm (!!!!)
can raise the temperature as much as the IPCC claims it will.
So what do simpleton experiments like this one show?
They should show you that all the heat
CO2 can absorb, in this case the heat coming from the 1570 foot candle floodlight has been
stripped out by the CO2 which is in the
upper layer of the atmosphere and can`t warm the
earth`s surface any more after it`s been absorbed
way up there (where the T is in the -40 C range !
In that kiddie experiment the enclosed 3X3 foot air parcel got 1 deg warmer. It represents a parcel of air which is several kilometers AGL and can re-radiate at (t+1)^4 more watts/m^2 more energy straight back into space.
So you tell me or show me an experiment which
first strips out (subtracted) the absorbed energy and then shows that you can increase the surface temperature
with this lesser, remaining amount of energy.
It would be easy enough to do that.
Take the same floodlight and
place it behind a 1 meter long glass tube which contains enough CO2 to yield a near 100% absorption and
then irradiate with what`s left another cubic parcel of air with 390 ppm CO2....all the
while allowing for convection.
That should not be a problem
because our air is at 390 ppm and
there is no need to enclose it in a sauna (sweat box or in a bottle) like in any of these kiddie brain "scientific experiments".
If you had any brains then you would realize that after you do that you
get less heat, not more!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo"]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]
So after watching this video what does your chicken-little brain tell you?
(The tube represents the upper atmosphere layers)
Would something on the far end of this tube where the candle flame all but vanished with his IR camera still heat up an object to a
higher temperature than one without the CO2 tube?
Of course not !
All that`s left after the tube is the visible& UV light and the IR
that CO2 can`t absorb....and only a non reflective object can...and after that it`s Planck & Boltzmann black body physics...with what ~1.5 watts/m^2 can possibly do...
1.5 watts that`s about the same power output as a "jumbo" IR LED.
So go ahead and try and heat a square meter of dirt in your yard or melt a block of ice with that
The AGW process which is
disputed has
no similarity whatsoever with any of these childish experiments you and the likes of you keep posting here.
This is what is being disputed:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+4]The Climate Catastrophe
[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]- A Spectroscopic Artifact?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]by [SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10^[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10^[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]
It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
There is no shortage of idiots like you and until you
do understand the greenhouse gas effect that scientists are discussing you should shut your loud mouth.
