Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The experiment demonstrates what GHGs are defined as being. Absorbers of longwave radiation. Thats good, by those pledged not to learn here, will only find another reason to avoid it.
But, you probably already know that.
I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.
Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..
You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..
For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.
For two --- the added gas PRESSURE is not compensated for..
For three -- you've changed the chemical composition of the liquid which MIGHT encourage more water vapor (the most dangerous gas) to sublimate into the "atmos".. (even if chem. diff doesn't do it, the addtnl heating from the CO2 will also vaporize more water, thus tainting the magnitude of the result)
That's enough ain't it?
The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.
It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..
There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.
You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..
No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.
I was curious about what would be posted as "proof."
Here's the problem, there is currently no direct correlation. Global average temperatures appear to be trending up (a separate claim that I question based on data adjustments needed to show this) but not in a direct way relative to carbon dioxide concentrations.
The planet is not a plastic bottle, CO2 concentrations have never and will never reach the level of concentration in the alka seltzer bottle, and the two bottles have unequal pressure inside them. There are too many variables to claim that CO2 is the reason one bottle is heating up - and this doesn't work in sunlight.
Science proves this?
Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.
Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
It's "simple" and wrong. Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction. That means it gives off heat. The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.
FAIL!
That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.
Science proves this?
Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.
Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]
As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.
It's not repeatable:
Falsification Of CO2 Greenhouse Effect
Not so CLEAN Greenhouse Gas in a Bottle Demonstration. Faulty hands-on science
I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.
Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..
You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..
For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.
For two --- the added gas PRESSURE is not compensated for..
For three -- you've changed the chemical composition of the liquid which MIGHT encourage more water vapor (the most dangerous gas) to sublimate into the "atmos".. (even if chem. diff doesn't do it, the addtnl heating from the CO2 will also vaporize more water, thus tainting the magnitude of the result)
That's enough ain't it?
The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.
It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..
There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.
You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..
Today the vast majority of the scientific pursuit of truth comes not from laboratories but computers. While the Wright Bros had to build and hope, today's aircraft fly first in virtual space.
People without advanced math skills can't even comprehend what's possible.
Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..
You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..
For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.
For two --- the added gas PRESSURE is not compensated for..
For three -- you've changed the chemical composition of the liquid which MIGHT encourage more water vapor (the most dangerous gas) to sublimate into the "atmos".. (even if chem. diff doesn't do it, the addtnl heating from the CO2 will also vaporize more water, thus tainting the magnitude of the result)
That's enough ain't it?
The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.
It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..
There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.
You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..
Today the vast majority of the scientific pursuit of truth comes not from laboratories but computers. While the Wright Bros had to build and hope, today's aircraft fly first in virtual space.
People without advanced math skills can't even comprehend what's possible.
Bullshit. They use highly complex CFD models that give them a basis for building a model. They then build the model and test them in a wind tunnel. Then they go back and work on the computer model again. Then they do a new scale model etc. That's why it takes 10 years minimum to design a new aircraft.
Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube
As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.
It's not repeatable:
Falsification Of CO2 Greenhouse Effect
Not so CLEAN Greenhouse Gas in a Bottle Demonstration. Faulty hands-on science
It also is not what they claim. It is an example of the Ideal Gas Laws in action. Had these morons taken a high school physics class they would know that.
ThanksToday the vast majority of the scientific pursuit of truth comes not from laboratories but computers. While the Wright Bros had to build and hope, today's aircraft fly first in virtual space.
People without advanced math skills can't even comprehend what's possible.
Bullshit. They use highly complex CFD models that give them a basis for building a model. They then build the model and test them in a wind tunnel. Then they go back and work on the computer model again. Then they do a new scale model etc. That's why it takes 10 years minimum to design a new aircraft.
I guess you are as obsolete on aircraft design as on climatology.
ThanksBullshit. They use highly complex CFD models that give them a basis for building a model. They then build the model and test them in a wind tunnel. Then they go back and work on the computer model again. Then they do a new scale model etc. That's why it takes 10 years minimum to design a new aircraft.
I guess you are as obsolete on aircraft design as on climatology.
You guess a lot. That's your problem....you don't know shit from shinola...
Thanks
I guess you are as obsolete on aircraft design as on climatology.
You guess a lot. That's your problem....you don't know shit from shinola...
But I do. That makes me your worst enemy. When you lie, I'll be there.
Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
It's "simple" and wrong. Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction. That means it gives off heat. The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.
FAIL!
That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.
Please show your work that shows the delta T recorded could come from the exothermic reaction.
Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.
I was curious about what would be posted as "proof."
Here's the problem, there is currently no direct correlation. Global average temperatures appear to be trending up (a separate claim that I question based on data adjustments needed to show this) but not in a direct way relative to carbon dioxide concentrations.
The planet is not a plastic bottle, CO2 concentrations have never and will never reach the level of concentration in the alka seltzer bottle, and the two bottles have unequal pressure inside them. There are too many variables to claim that CO2 is the reason one bottle is heating up - and this doesn't work in sunlight.
Shows us your calculations that confirm what caused that specific delta T if not IR absorption.
I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.
Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..
You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..
For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.
For two --- the added gas PRESSURE is not compensated for..
For three -- you've changed the chemical composition of the liquid which MIGHT encourage more water vapor (the most dangerous gas) to sublimate into the "atmos".. (even if chem. diff doesn't do it, the addtnl heating from the CO2 will also vaporize more water, thus tainting the magnitude of the result)
That's enough ain't it?
The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.
It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..
There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.
You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..
Today the vast majority of the scientific pursuit of truth comes not from laboratories but computers. While the Wright Bros had to build and hope, today's aircraft fly first in virtual space.
People without advanced math skills can't even comprehend what's possible.
No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.
I was curious about what would be posted as "proof."
Here's the problem, there is currently no direct correlation. Global average temperatures appear to be trending up (a separate claim that I question based on data adjustments needed to show this) but not in a direct way relative to carbon dioxide concentrations.
The planet is not a plastic bottle, CO2 concentrations have never and will never reach the level of concentration in the alka seltzer bottle, and the two bottles have unequal pressure inside them. There are too many variables to claim that CO2 is the reason one bottle is heating up - and this doesn't work in sunlight.
Science proves this?
Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.
Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
It's "simple" and wrong. Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction. That means it gives off heat. The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.
FAIL!
That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.
Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
It's "simple" and wrong. Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction. That means it gives off heat. The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.
FAIL!
That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.
Hey dude, I have a degree in a science based discipline. I'm just trying to find something my audience can relate to. BTW, I'm surprised you've even heard the term exothermic.
You guess a lot. That's your problem....you don't know shit from shinola...
But I do. That makes me your worst enemy. When you lie, I'll be there.
No, no you don't. That much is obvious. But, by all means, if ever I lie...and I never have, feel free to point it out. And to be a "worst enemy" you have to have some credibility....you have none..
