250 Peer Reviewed Papers in 2015 Alone Cast Doubt on AGW Hypothesis

[jc456]

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

Actually in the mythbuster's video they said they introduced CO2 at 350 parts per million and methane at 1800 parts per billion and they said that guy monitoring was
Maniesh Gupta, a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. And they specifically said that the amounts measured were "no problem for this gear."

And you say "if it re-emits" You don't accept that science or accept the description given by UCAR at the site I quoted?
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

you need to look at the monitor on the mythbuster to understand that one.

no I don't think CO2 re-emits. I haven't seen any evidence that shows it does. I thought i stated that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me snagletooth, You post up a bunch of horse crap about models and how they must be right, as the military uses them yet you fail to show us how their predictive powers. Come on snagletooth, show us the predictive powers stage of theroy falsification for all of your models.
Every single GCM (Global Climate Model) used today by the military and every other government agency fails inside of 36 hours. This means that they still dont have a clue how the system works and therefore can not quantify the necessary items to make the models work..

That Air Force "model" has been detecting recent missile launches from North Korea.

You claim that's not possible, as all such models are totally wrong.

You're obviously profoundly stupid and delusional, just another cult nutter for everyone to laugh at.

Too Funny; you cant differentiate a quantifiable missile heat trail of known parameters and fantasy GCM's..

 

[Billy_Bob]

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

Actually in the mythbuster's video they said they introduced CO2 at 350 parts per million and methane at 1800 parts per billion and they said that guy monitoring was
Maniesh Gupta, a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. And they specifically said that the amounts measured were "no problem for this gear."

And you say "if it re-emits" You don't accept that science or accept the description given by UCAR at the site I quoted?
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Actually, if you look closely at the monitors during the experiment the levels of CO2 were above 700ppm. CO2 does not itself warm. Only the air and water vapor around it will when CO2 releases its photon (LWIR) vibrating at the temperature of the CO2 molecule when it collides with water vapor and the heat is released. The mythbusters dog and pony show was a failure and the experiment was nothing more than BS.

Water vapor does not release its heat near surface. It climbs until it cools, re-nucleates and becomes a water droplet again, releasing its heat to space.

The mid atmospheric hot spot, which is at the core of the AGW belief can not form, as water vapor does not release its heat in an area of equal heat. It simply rises until it can cool. Water vapor acts as a negative forcing not a positive one. Every alarmist model is programmed with this misconception and is one major reason why they all fail. Their expectations are wrong and they refuse to look at empirical evidence and admit they are wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

Just because a single gas can, in laboratory experiments, retard heat loss does not mean it will act the same in our open atmosphere. From your own admission there is insufficient evidence to suggest AGW is real or provable, yet you want us to destroy our way of life for your belief?

 

[skookerasbil]

w0w.....Ive seen some threads where AGW heads are exploding but this one is particularly laughable.

It is fascinating.........to these people, the threat to their obsession is profoundly disturbing. Look at the responses.......almost invariably a mental meltdown!! And people might wonder why this is called a religion??!!!

The science is settled s0ns.........so why this level of angst?

 

[Searcher44]

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

Actually in the mythbuster's video they said they introduced CO2 at 350 parts per million and methane at 1800 parts per billion and they said that guy monitoring was
Maniesh Gupta, a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. And they specifically said that the amounts measured were "no problem for this gear."

And you say "if it re-emits" You don't accept that science or accept the description given by UCAR at the site I quoted?
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Actually, if you look closely at the monitors during the experiment the levels of CO2 were above 700ppm. CO2 does not itself warm. Only the air and water vapor around it will when CO2 releases its photon (LWIR) vibrating at the temperature of the CO2 molecule when it collides with water vapor and the heat is released. The mythbusters dog and pony show was a failure and the experiment was nothing more than BS.

Water vapor does not release its heat near surface. It climbs until it cools, re-nucleates and becomes a water droplet again, releasing its heat to space.

The mid atmospheric hot spot, which is at the core of the AGW belief can not form, as water vapor does not release its heat in an area of equal heat. It simply rises until it can cool. Water vapor acts as a negative forcing not a positive one. Every alarmist model is programmed with this misconception and is one major reason why they all fail. Their expectations are wrong and they refuse to look at empirical evidence and admit they are wrong.

I didn't notice that 700ppm, I'll have another look, thanks. (I did say that their experiment "crudely quantifies", I wasn't expecting it to be that crude.) Actually the crucial point I was trying to emphasize was that CO2 does absorb certain wavelengths of radiation and does emit radiation. jc says he does not accept that CO2 has that property, which was discovered almost 200 yrs. ago I think. Rejecting an argument when you won't accept the most basic scientific facts isn't legitimate skepticism in my opinion. I'm trying to get to a point where I can call myself a "legitimate" skeptic. I'm definitely not at the point where I can make a rational judgement on the argument, I am trying to educate myself. This property that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas is maybe the first and most important scientific fact you have to be aware of in order to evaluate the argument, would you agree with that? Well I think it's fundamentally important enough that I'm digging a little deeper into the physics of it. At the same time I've been looking at some of the concepts you mention, forcing, heat exchange, probability that models have any predictive potential, etc. One way or another the CC debate is very important, to the future of life on the planet if the CC'ers are right, to wasted resources and unnecessary disruption of the economy etc if they are not. It's only recently that I decided to legitimize myself as a skeptic. I'm not even close to forming an opinion one way or another.

 

[IanC]

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

Actually in the mythbuster's video they said they introduced CO2 at 350 parts per million and methane at 1800 parts per billion and they said that guy monitoring was
Maniesh Gupta, a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. And they specifically said that the amounts measured were "no problem for this gear."

And you say "if it re-emits" You don't accept that science or accept the description given by UCAR at the site I quoted?
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Actually, if you look closely at the monitors during the experiment the levels of CO2 were above 700ppm. CO2 does not itself warm. Only the air and water vapor around it will when CO2 releases its photon (LWIR) vibrating at the temperature of the CO2 molecule when it collides with water vapor and the heat is released. The mythbusters dog and pony show was a failure and the experiment was nothing more than BS.

Water vapor does not release its heat near surface. It climbs until it cools, re-nucleates and becomes a water droplet again, releasing its heat to space.

The mid atmospheric hot spot, which is at the core of the AGW belief can not form, as water vapor does not release its heat in an area of equal heat. It simply rises until it can cool. Water vapor acts as a negative forcing not a positive one. Every alarmist model is programmed with this misconception and is one major reason why they all fail. Their expectations are wrong and they refuse to look at empirical evidence and admit they are wrong.

I didn't notice that 700ppm, I'll have another look, thanks. (I did say that their experiment "crudely quantifies", I wasn't expecting it to be that crude.) Actually the crucial point I was trying to emphasize was that CO2 does absorb certain wavelengths of radiation and does emit radiation. jc says he does not accept that CO2 has that property, which was discovered almost 200 yrs. ago I think. Rejecting an argument when you won't accept the most basic scientific facts isn't legitimate skepticism in my opinion. I'm trying to get to a point where I can call myself a "legitimate" skeptic. I'm definitely not at the point where I can make a rational judgement on the argument, I am trying to educate myself. This property that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas is maybe the first and most important scientific fact you have to be aware of in order to evaluate the argument, would you agree with that? Well I think it's fundamentally important enough that I'm digging a little deeper into the physics of it. At the same time I've been looking at some of the concepts you mention, forcing, heat exchange, probability that models have any predictive potential, etc. One way or another the CC debate is very important, to the future of life on the planet if the CC'ers are right, to wasted resources and unnecessary disruption of the economy etc if they are not. It's only recently that I decided to legitimize myself as a skeptic. I'm not even close to forming an opinion one way or another.

it has been a while since we discussed the Mythbusters' experiment. wasnt it 7%? or 70,000 ppm? too bad a hi-def version didnt show up. nor did answers to emails to the show or the guy doing the measurements.

the second experiment had a web page for a while that described the difficulties and the steps necessary to get it to work. false colour palette and a narrow band filter (but not in the 15 micron range).

the third experiment isnt even worth talking about probably.

on the other hand your gif of a CO2 molecule absorbing and emitting a photon is worth talking about. the average time to re-emit a photon is ten times longer than the average time between molecular collisions (at STP) therefore the energy is more likely to be converted to general kinetic or potential energy than re-emitted from the same molecule. this, of course, is the definition of temperature. CO2 absorbs certain bands of IR, which warms the atmosphere around it. the atmosphere continues to have molecular collisions which produce 'blackbody' radiation in a random direction, which returns some of the energy back to the surface.

 

[IanC]

not a great description, but certainly better than the pabulum given out by the media to decribe the greenhouse effect.

 

[Crick]

Ian, you've given up the right to ever again call the boys at Skeptical Science cartoonists.

 

[IanC]

Ian, you've given up the right to ever again call the boys at Skeptical Science cartoonists.

explain the problems that you think you see.

 

[Crick]

Someone wasted a great deal of effort accomplishing nothing. What does your animation show that the text would not? Photons leaving dashed trails? And Searcher44 is absolutely correct about the Mythbusters experiment. They STATED levels were at 350 ppm and 1800 ppb. The idea that this was a lie (with the expert and his employer both named) and that they then decided for unknown reasons to include a two second clip showing the actual values used is simply nonsense.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....like I said......heads exploding. The AGW clan lives their lives in utter angst.

 

[IanC]

Someone wasted a great deal of effort accomplishing nothing. What does your animation show that the text would not? Photons leaving dashed trails? And Searcher44 is absolutely correct about the Mythbusters experiment. They STATED levels were at 350 ppm and 1800 ppb. The idea that this was a lie (with the expert and his employer both named) and that they then decided for unknown reasons to include a two second clip showing the actual values used is simply nonsense.

the animation gives examples of many types of interaction. it points out that CO2 can simply absorb and emit at 15 microns. or CO2 (excited or ground state) can collide and emit any of the 3 example IR photons. likewise with H2O. it makes it clear that 10 micron IR directly escapes (if aimed at space).

the whole concept of IR being absorbed by GHGs and adding to the atmospheric energy cohort, where it is transformed into blackbody radiation (according to temp) is basically ignored by the media explanations of the greenhouse effect. this animation is trying to correct the misrepresentation.


as far as the Mythbusters' experiment.....are the control boxes at 350ppm CO2? I didnt hear them explain how the control boxes were specially prepared to have no CO2 or methane, and the boxes dont look particularly airtight. if the control boxes were standard atmospheric concentration of CO2, then there would be no difference when testing against a 350ppm CO2 box. and the instrument was reading 7% and going down, just as if it had been charged with a bolus of CO2 that was slowly leaking out of a less than airtight box. if the instrument wasnt reading the test box, what was it measuring?

your explanation is convoluted and almost preposterous. mine is simple and straight forward. the test box was charged with CO2 that was many orders of magnitude higher concentration than the control boxes at standard atmospheric levels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Someone wasted a great deal of effort accomplishing nothing. What does your animation show that the text would not? Photons leaving dashed trails? And Searcher44 is absolutely correct about the Mythbusters experiment. They STATED levels were at 350 ppm and 1800 ppb. The idea that this was a lie (with the expert and his employer both named) and that they then decided for unknown reasons to include a two second clip showing the actual values used is simply nonsense.

We're not sure what the Mythbusters experiment was. I made several calls and emails the lab that conducted the experiment, to ask them specifically about the CO2 levels because at one point in the Mythbusters Experiment it show a CO2 reading much, much higher than the 350PPM CO2 mentioned on the tape

 

[Crick]

And...?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

Actually in the mythbuster's video they said they introduced CO2 at 350 parts per million and methane at 1800 parts per billion and they said that guy monitoring was
Maniesh Gupta, a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. And they specifically said that the amounts measured were "no problem for this gear."

And you say "if it re-emits" You don't accept that science or accept the description given by UCAR at the site I quoted?
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Actually, if you look closely at the monitors during the experiment the levels of CO2 were above 700ppm. CO2 does not itself warm. Only the air and water vapor around it will when CO2 releases its photon (LWIR) vibrating at the temperature of the CO2 molecule when it collides with water vapor and the heat is released. The mythbusters dog and pony show was a failure and the experiment was nothing more than BS.

Water vapor does not release its heat near surface. It climbs until it cools, re-nucleates and becomes a water droplet again, releasing its heat to space.

The mid atmospheric hot spot, which is at the core of the AGW belief can not form, as water vapor does not release its heat in an area of equal heat. It simply rises until it can cool. Water vapor acts as a negative forcing not a positive one. Every alarmist model is programmed with this misconception and is one major reason why they all fail. Their expectations are wrong and they refuse to look at empirical evidence and admit they are wrong.

I didn't notice that 700ppm, I'll have another look, thanks. (I did say that their experiment "crudely quantifies", I wasn't expecting it to be that crude.) Actually the crucial point I was trying to emphasize was that CO2 does absorb certain wavelengths of radiation and does emit radiation. jc says he does not accept that CO2 has that property, which was discovered almost 200 yrs. ago I think. Rejecting an argument when you won't accept the most basic scientific facts isn't legitimate skepticism in my opinion. I'm trying to get to a point where I can call myself a "legitimate" skeptic. I'm definitely not at the point where I can make a rational judgement on the argument, I am trying to educate myself. This property that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas is maybe the first and most important scientific fact you have to be aware of in order to evaluate the argument, would you agree with that? Well I think it's fundamentally important enough that I'm digging a little deeper into the physics of it. At the same time I've been looking at some of the concepts you mention, forcing, heat exchange, probability that models have any predictive potential, etc. One way or another the CC debate is very important, to the future of life on the planet if the CC'ers are right, to wasted resources and unnecessary disruption of the economy etc if they are not. It's only recently that I decided to legitimize myself as a skeptic. I'm not even close to forming an opinion one way or another.

it has been a while since we discussed the Mythbusters' experiment. wasnt it 7%? or 70,000 ppm? too bad a hi-def version didnt show up. nor did answers to emails to the show or the guy doing the measurements.

the second experiment had a web page for a while that described the difficulties and the steps necessary to get it to work. false colour palette and a narrow band filter (but not in the 15 micron range).

the third experiment isnt even worth talking about probably.

on the other hand your gif of a CO2 molecule absorbing and emitting a photon is worth talking about. the average time to re-emit a photon is ten times longer than the average time between molecular collisions (at STP) therefore the energy is more likely to be converted to general kinetic or potential energy than re-emitted from the same molecule. this, of course, is the definition of temperature. CO2 absorbs certain bands of IR, which warms the atmosphere around it. the atmosphere continues to have molecular collisions which produce 'blackbody' radiation in a random direction, which returns some of the energy back to the surface.

Dang it Ian, you made me go back and look... It is 7.23% of atmosphere or 72,300ppm. In any event the dog and pony show was not realistic in any form. The lights, distance to the targets, thickness of the covers, lack of convection and column temperature differential, etc make it nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

 

[Billy_Bob]

not a great description, but certainly better than the pabulum given out by the media to decribe the greenhouse effect.

Well it does show random distribution (which is a first, Ive never seen this animation before) and nothing over at the crayon kids (SKS) is even remotely like reality. When you figure out that the increase in CO2 has a return to surface rate of less than 24% you understand why a LOG return diminishes.

 

[jc456]

Someone wasted a great deal of effort accomplishing nothing. What does your animation show that the text would not? Photons leaving dashed trails? And Searcher44 is absolutely correct about the Mythbusters experiment. They STATED levels were at 350 ppm and 1800 ppb. The idea that this was a lie (with the expert and his employer both named) and that they then decided for unknown reasons to include a two second clip showing the actual values used is simply nonsense.

We're not sure what the Mythbusters experiment was. I made several calls and emails the lab that conducted the experiment, to ask them specifically about the CO2 levels because at one point in the Mythbusters Experiment it show a CO2 reading much, much higher than the 350PPM CO2 mentioned on the tape

I also emailed mythbusters , they don't do shows anymore. Maybe that's why no feedback

 

[Billy_Bob]

Someone wasted a great deal of effort accomplishing nothing. What does your animation show that the text would not? Photons leaving dashed trails? And Searcher44 is absolutely correct about the Mythbusters experiment. They STATED levels were at 350 ppm and 1800 ppb. The idea that this was a lie (with the expert and his employer both named) and that they then decided for unknown reasons to include a two second clip showing the actual values used is simply nonsense.

We're not sure what the Mythbusters experiment was. I made several calls and emails the lab that conducted the experiment, to ask them specifically about the CO2 levels because at one point in the Mythbusters Experiment it show a CO2 reading much, much higher than the 350PPM CO2 mentioned on the tape

I also emailed mythbusters , they don't do shows anymore. Maybe that's why no feedback

Universal Studios, the producer of Mythbusters, refused to comment on the video as they describe it "were in the buisness of giving people what they want and entertaining". Without directly saying it, they implied that it was stage craft only. Jammie Dupree has not responded to any letters or questions.

Duck, Dodge, Weave, and Bobb.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Someone wasted a great deal of effort accomplishing nothing. What does your animation show that the text would not? Photons leaving dashed trails? And Searcher44 is absolutely correct about the Mythbusters experiment. They STATED levels were at 350 ppm and 1800 ppb. The idea that this was a lie (with the expert and his employer both named) and that they then decided for unknown reasons to include a two second clip showing the actual values used is simply nonsense.

We're not sure what the Mythbusters experiment was. I made several calls and emails the lab that conducted the experiment, to ask them specifically about the CO2 levels because at one point in the Mythbusters Experiment it show a CO2 reading much, much higher than the 350PPM CO2 mentioned on the tape

I also emailed mythbusters , they don't do shows anymore. Maybe that's why no feedback

Universal Studios, the producer of Mythbusters, refused to comment on the video as they describe it "were in the buisness of giving people what they want and entertaining". Without directly saying it, they implied that it was stage craft only. Jammie Dupree has not responded to any letters or questions.

Duck, Dodge, Weave, and Bobb.....

They did show us it was faked when they gave us the screenshot at 1:36 showing 7.351% CO2.