CO2 Experiments posted here

[Crick]

The Mythbusters video used gas levels equivalent to actual atmospheric values and measured a 1C increase in temperature from 120 ppm added CO2.

 

[IanC]

The Mythbusters video used gas levels equivalent to actual atmospheric values and measured a 1C increase in temperature from 120 ppm added CO2.

they implied that by saying that it was possible to measure small changes. no measurements that I saw. when did they say that the control boxes had 400ppm CO2 and the other one 520? or 280 and 400? perhaps they did have some variation of that but they did not state it and they did not show it. and no one responded to questions asked about the set up which leads me to suspect that the difference was much greater than 120 ppm. why would 120 ppm cause a full degree of warming? there are no atmospheric feedbacks in the boxes are there? more questions than answers Im afraid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Mythbusters video used gas levels equivalent to actual atmospheric values and measured a 1C increase in temperature from 120 ppm added CO2.

They never said how much CO2 was in the containers.

I called the scientist who conducted the experiment and he never responded.

I think we should all call the lab he works for to get to the bottom of this

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions. That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most. Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.

CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????

 

[JoeNormal]

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions. That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most. Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.

CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????

Where did I say that?

 

[Crick]

And do you believe that as widely accepted as is that effect, that it hasn't been done to the satisfaction of professional climate researchers? You can find a dozen kits for school children to do it. We've posted videos of amateurs doing it. And, Ian, how about you explain to your fellow whatevers, how one gets these data without having done detailed versions of these experiments:

Actually you have not produced a video a 120 ppm CO2 increase. That is what all the squabbling is about. We know that CO2 and H2O absorb IR what we don't know is how that relates to actual temperature increase. There are no 'kits' that come with precision instruments to measure CO2 and water vapour so it would have to be done in a lab.

Everything you need to directly calculate its effect is in that graph and a good ingredients list of the Earth's atmosphere. Your strategy or tactic or meme of trying to pretend that atmospheric scientists don't actually know what they're talking about is - and always has been - simply foolish.

 

[Crick]

One of the characteristics that makes these gasses greenhouse gasses is that they re-radiate IR in all directions. That they re-radiate half of it downward is what matters most. Then the albedo of the ground it hits and its specific gravity are what determine the degree of the warming at any given location.

Crick is right, the experiment you describe and the characterizations you seem to think are missing were probably pretty complete by the end of the 50's.

CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????

Where did I say that?

You didn't, of course. I believe the idea originated with SSDD in one of his psychedelic interpretations of basic thermo. Someone a few posts back said something about AGW requiring that the Earth receive more energy reradiated by its atmosphere than directly from the sun. That was probably somehow tied into SSDD's unique ideas about radiative heat transfer.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????

Where did I say that?

You didn't, of course. I believe the idea originated with SSDD in one of his psychedelic interpretations of basic thermo. Someone a few posts back said something about AGW requiring that the Earth receive more energy reradiated by its atmosphere than directly from the sun.

You are kidding right? The surface of the earth absorbing more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun is the cornerstone of AGW...without it, there is no AGW hypothesis.

 

[Crick]

Well, that's excellent. So do you accept that diagram as accurate?

 

[IanC]

SSDD only acknowledges heatsinks when it is useful for him.

I don't believe Trenberth's cartoon is absolutely correct but it does point out that the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Well, that's excellent. So do you accept that diagram as accurate?

Of course not...it is pure idiocy...it is the basis of the whole AGW scam.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD only acknowledges heatsinks when it is useful for him.

I don't believe Trenberth's cartoon is absolutely correct but it does point out that the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.

You actually believe that a surface absorbing 161 wm^2 from its primary energy source is radiating 453 wm^2

 

[Crick]

... the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.

Escapes to where? The last time I checked, due to that vacuum around the planet, radiation was the only route off.

 

[IanC]

SSDD only acknowledges heatsinks when it is useful for him.

I don't believe Trenberth's cartoon is absolutely correct but it does point out that the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.

You actually believe that a surface absorbing 161 wm^2 from its primary energy source is radiating 453 wm^2

And how much is it receiving from the atmosjere?? Heat sink. Only you thinks it would be the same temp without an atmoshere to insulate us.

 

[IanC]

... the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.

Escapes to where? The last time I checked, due to that vacuum around the planet, radiation was the only route off.

As I have told you many times in the past, convection and the water cycle do the heavy lifting to get energy passed the bottleneck close to the surface. Once on the other side of the clouds it has a much easier egress because there is little water and a much lower density. Do you really not understand?

 

[Crick]

... the majority of the surface energy escapes by convection and the water cycle not radiation.

Escapes to where? The last time I checked, due to that vacuum around the planet, radiation was the only route off.

As I have told you many times in the past, convection and the water cycle do the heavy lifting to get energy passed the bottleneck close to the surface. Once on the other side of the clouds it has a much easier egress because there is little water and a much lower density. Do you really not understand?

Yes, Ian, I most certainly do understand. Do YOU understand that getting above the clouds is not "escape"?

 

[Crick]

Until a quantum of energy is on the very edge of the atmosphere, there are countless molecules it must get by to escape and every one of them roughly a 50/50 chance that it'll soon be headed back down.

 

[IanC]

Escapes to where? The last time I checked, due to that vacuum around the planet, radiation was the only route off.

As I have told you many times in the past, convection and the water cycle do the heavy lifting to get energy passed the bottleneck close to the surface. Once on the other side of the clouds it has a much easier egress because there is little water and a much lower density. Do you really not understand?

Yes, Ian, I most certainly do understand. Do YOU understand that getting above the clouds is not "escape"?

That's why I said surface energy. How much radiation gets through to the cloud tops? How much radiation not in the atmospheric window gets through? About 25W. We are talking about 1/8th of the radiation bouncing through an already saturated portion of the atmosphere.

This half down scenario that gets people freaked out is still in effect at 300, 200 or even 100 ppm CO2.

 

[Crick]

My point is that energy that's left the surface by convection or evaporation has not escaped, it's simply moved to the atmosphere from which it cannot escape without RADIATING upwards. What do you think would be the average length of time it takes for a cc of air 1 meter off the ground to attain an altitude of 160,000 meters? How often does a cc of air make that sort of trip over that span of time without radiating and absorbing a few photons? Convection is not a major conduit of thermal energy between the surface and space.

 

[IanC]

My point is that energy that's left the surface by convection or evaporation has not escaped, it's simply moved to the atmosphere from which it cannot escape without RADIATING upwards. What do you think would be the average length of time it takes for a cc of air 1 meter off the ground to attain an altitude of 160,000 meters? How often does a cc of air make that sort of trip over that span of time without radiating and absorbing a few photons? Convection is not a major conduit of thermal energy between the surface and space.

I must be off my game today because I am having a hard time trying to figure out your point. Are you saying that the surface is warming predominantly because of what is happening on the other side of the clouds?

could you give me something more to work with other than the trivially true statement that the only way energy escapes earth is by radiation. or that the outer levels of the atmosphere are not driven by convection like the troposphere?