15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[PMZ]

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.

I just did, nitwit. You see, changing the composition of the gases in the bottle isn't the only thing he did. He increased the pressure in one, plus he introduced an exothermic reaction. As a chemist, he's a total imbecile.

Furthermore, I don't have to show shit. He has to show that he's isolated the variable, and it's 100% clear that he hasn't. He's introducing several variables into the experiment. He's either an idiot or a conman who's deliberately trying to fool his audience.

Where are your calculations showing that those two effects outweigh the IR absorption. This is why real scientists build math models rather than make wild ass guesses.

 

[PMZ]

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 haven't conducted the experiment myself, there's no need because the experiment doesn't isolate CO2 as a variable.

The other variables can verify easily shown to be a big part or an insignificant part of the delta T.

 

[bripat9643]

Please show your work that shows the delta T recorded could come from the exothermic reaction.

I just did, nitwit. You see, changing the composition of the gases in the bottle isn't the only thing he did. He increased the pressure in one, plus he introduced an exothermic reaction. As a chemist, he's a total imbecile.

Furthermore, I don't have to show shit. He has to show that he's isolated the variable, and it's 100% clear that he hasn't. He's introducing several variables into the experiment. He's either an idiot or a conman who's deliberately trying to fool his audience.

Where are your calculations showing that those two effects outweigh the IR absorption. This is why real scientists build math models rather than make wild ass guesses.

I don't need to do any calculations. You need to design a better experiment. The design of the experiment in the video is flawed. You claimed it demonstrated the effect of light interacting with CO2. It doesn't show what you claimed. End of story.

All you're saying is that you have no clue whether the experiment shows what you claim it shows. In other words, the experiment is worthless as proof of the greenhouse effect.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Where does a hydrologist learn programming?

I've never been a hydrologist.

 

[bripat9643]

Shows us your calculations that confirm what caused that specific delta T if not IR absorption.

I haven't conducted the experiment myself, there's no need because the experiment doesn't isolate CO2 as a variable.

The other variables can verify easily shown to be a big part or an insignificant part of the delta T.

Then do it. But that won't be very convincing. A well designed experiment wouldn't introduce additional variables.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

How does that alter the fact that your experiment is a hoax?

Generally, when you explain something to an unsophisticated audience (children and conservatives for instance), you take a few short cuts that might not be completely accurate.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

Yeah, I'm sure this isn't the best experiment ever conducted - more of a science fair demonstration than anything. For those who are actually interested, I've posted a University of Chicago lecture on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, that one takes 45 minutes to watch and involves some simple math. Haven't heard any discussion of that one for some reason.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

How does that alter the fact that your experiment is a hoax?

Generally, when you explain something to an unsophisticated audience (children and conservatives for instance), you take a few short cuts that might not be completely accurate.

You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.

 

[JoeNormal]

How does that alter the fact that your experiment is a hoax?

Generally, when you explain something to an unsophisticated audience (children and conservatives for instance), you take a few short cuts that might not be completely accurate.

You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

Generally, when you explain something to an unsophisticated audience (children and conservatives for instance), you take a few short cuts that might not be completely accurate.

You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

Yeah, I'm sure this isn't the best experiment ever conducted - more of a science fair demonstration than anything. For those who are actually interested, I've posted a University of Chicago lecture on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, that one takes 45 minutes to watch and involves some simple math. Haven't heard any discussion of that one for some reason.

Can you repost the link? Thanks

 

[JoeNormal]

You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

 

[JoeNormal]

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

Yeah, I'm sure this isn't the best experiment ever conducted - more of a science fair demonstration than anything. For those who are actually interested, I've posted a University of Chicago lecture on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, that one takes 45 minutes to watch and involves some simple math. Haven't heard any discussion of that one for some reason.

Can you repost the link? Thanks

Just did in post #350.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

Yeah, I'm sure this isn't the best experiment ever conducted - more of a science fair demonstration than anything. For those who are actually interested, I've posted a University of Chicago lecture on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, that one takes 45 minutes to watch and involves some simple math. Haven't heard any discussion of that one for some reason.

You tube is not generally my favorite source but here is a very visual and simple demonstration of CO2's GHG properties.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw&sns=em]Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PMZ]

Generally, when you explain something to an unsophisticated audience (children and conservatives for instance), you take a few short cuts that might not be completely accurate.

You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]

What a great lecturer and lecture. Things become so obvious with a rational step by step explanation from someone with a mastery of the science.

One question that I ask myself is, how much of his lecture was based on IPCC developed science?

Do you know if there's a link available to the public for his web based model?

Thanks.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Can't believe you here.. It has the NOAA Stamp of Approval right on the Webpage for teachers..

You've gone too far Westwall.. Now you want me to believe that our highly distinguished govt science bureaus don't know High School physics ??

Why would they promote bad science ?? Especially in the goal of educating our precious children??

 

[flacaltenn]

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

Yeah Joe --- I've got one..

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom??

That's my conspiracy theory for the day..
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..

 

[PMZ]

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

Yeah Joe --- I've got one..

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom??

That's my conspiracy theory for the day..
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..

You continue to believe that everyone's understanding of science is as limited as yours. Classic D-K syndrome. You whine about this middle school demonstration but can't, apparently, do the simple math or experiment design that would reveal your whining as of trivialities. Like adding a third closed bottle with the same dose of Alka Seltzer and measuring it's delta T.

It's absolutely no wonder that the boobs and boobies at Fox found you to be such an easy mark.

 

[JoeNormal]

You advocate lying to your audience in order to persuade them that what you are claiming is factual, but only if you think the audience will be unable or unwilling to blindly accept your "facts" without the lies.

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]

What a great lecturer and lecture. Things become so obvious with a rational step by step explanation from someone with a mastery of the science.

One question that I ask myself is, how much of his lecture was based on IPCC developed science?

Do you know if there's a link available to the public for his web based model?

Thanks.

I'll see if I can find one. I'm a little busy today but if it doesn't slip my mind I'll search.