CO2 Experiments posted here

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????

 

[SSDD]

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.

Except in rare instances of inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface....it is receiving none.

I don't think it would be the same temperature without an atmosphere...you luke warmers are as willing to lie about what your opponents say as the full blown warmer wackos like crick and rocks, and mammoth. The greenhouse hypothesis gets the temperature of the moon wrong when it receives essentially the same amount of energy as the earth per square meter. The greenhouse hypothesis is a crock....it was proven incorrect shortly after it was first described....and any hypothesis describing energy movement within an atmosphere which can only describe the temperature of one planet in a solar system and only do that with constant adjustment is not a hypothesis to be taken seriously.

 

[JoeNormal]

CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????

Where did I say that?

If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????

Most of the spectrum of sunlight is a much smaller wavelength than CO2 absorbs so it has no problem getting past it on the way down. The Earth is a blackbody radiator in the IR range so some of what it radiates is absorbed by the CO2 and half of THAT gets re-radiated back down.

I'm going on vacation so you'll have to get your science lessons from Crick for a while.

 

[jc456]

Where did I say that?

If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????

Most of the spectrum of sunlight is a much smaller wavelength than CO2 absorbs so it has no problem getting past it on the way down. The Earth is a blackbody radiator in the IR range so some of what it radiates is absorbed by the CO2 and half of THAT gets re-radiated back down.

I'm going on vacation so you'll have to get your science lessons from Crick for a while.

Yo, curious, does the CO2 molecule ever saturate?

And if it saturates, how can it continue to absorb? at some point the molecule has to saturate.

 

[flacaltenn]

CO2 radiates more energy than it receives????

Where did I say that?

If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????

Another way of stating that is that the net heat flow is always up towards space. The IR from CO2 that REDUCES the heat loss is only the "1/2" aimed at the surface. That amount subtracts from the BlackBody surface radiation in the same wavelengths that is leaving the surface..

Doesn't add a wit of heat.. It merely reduces the cooling rate..

 

[flacaltenn]

When can I present my DIY CO2 at Home experiment involving 20 cans of beer, duct tape, and a ceiling fan?

 

[SSDD]

Where did I say that?

If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????

Another way of stating that is that the net heat flow is always up towards space. The IR from CO2 that REDUCES the heat loss is only the "1/2" aimed at the surface. That amount subtracts from the BlackBody surface radiation in the same wavelengths that is leaving the surface..

Doesn't add a wit of heat.. It merely reduces the cooling rate..

Which can't cause warming...

 

[flacaltenn]

If it didn't hit the CO2 molecule 100% would have hit the surface, so unless CO2 amplifies the energy receives, how can "re-radiate half of it downward" make a bit of difference????????

Another way of stating that is that the net heat flow is always up towards space. The IR from CO2 that REDUCES the heat loss is only the "1/2" aimed at the surface. That amount subtracts from the BlackBody surface radiation in the same wavelengths that is leaving the surface..

Doesn't add a wit of heat.. It merely reduces the cooling rate..

Which can't cause warming...

Of course it contributes to warming if you reduce the predominant path for heat flow AWAY from the object. It's called thermal resistance or insulation.. Changes the steady state equilibrium -- everything else kept the same.

 

[SSDD]

Another way of stating that is that the net heat flow is always up towards space. The IR from CO2 that REDUCES the heat loss is only the "1/2" aimed at the surface. That amount subtracts from the BlackBody surface radiation in the same wavelengths that is leaving the surface..

Doesn't add a wit of heat.. It merely reduces the cooling rate..

Which can't cause warming...

Of course it contributes to warming if you reduce the predominant path for heat flow AWAY from the object. It's called thermal resistance or insulation.. Changes the steady state equilibrium -- everything else kept the same.

No amount of insulation can cause warming...if you want warming...you need more energy and you can't get it from the cooler atmosphere.

 

[flacaltenn]

Which can't cause warming...

Of course it contributes to warming if you reduce the predominant path for heat flow AWAY from the object. It's called thermal resistance or insulation.. Changes the steady state equilibrium -- everything else kept the same.

No amount of insulation can cause warming...if you want warming...you need more energy and you can't get it from the cooler atmosphere.

So...... The pink panther is lying about R45 keeping your home warmer than R30 with the same HVAC system eh ??? Never trust a pink animal.

 

[SSDD]

Of course it contributes to warming if you reduce the predominant path for heat flow AWAY from the object. It's called thermal resistance or insulation.. Changes the steady state equilibrium -- everything else kept the same.

No amount of insulation can cause warming...if you want warming...you need more energy and you can't get it from the cooler atmosphere.

So...... The pink panther is lying about R45 keeping your home warmer than R30 with the same HVAC system eh ??? Never trust a pink animal.

What is the R value of CO2? Can you quantify the greenhouse effect? Is the atmosphere like that pink stuff I see up in my attic? And finally, if I put that pink stuff in my home and turn off the heat, will it provide the energy necessary to keep my home warm or will my house simply cool a bit more slowly?

And for all your belief in the power of CO2 and such, where is the warming? Why the pause? CO2 has increased steadily over the past 2 decades, and we know that the route of energy in the system hasn't suddenly detoured to the deep oceans...no warming, no tropospheric hot spot...no none of the things the greenhouse hypothesis in conjunction with the AGW hypothesis predict. Both hypotheses are failures being kept alive by all the money politics can throw at them. Isn't it about time that science started actually investigating the climate and what really drives it...where the energy goes...etc. etc. etc.

 

[jc456]

Of course it contributes to warming if you reduce the predominant path for heat flow AWAY from the object. It's called thermal resistance or insulation.. Changes the steady state equilibrium -- everything else kept the same.

No amount of insulation can cause warming...if you want warming...you need more energy and you can't get it from the cooler atmosphere.

So...... The pink panther is lying about R45 keeping your home warmer than R30 with the same HVAC system eh ??? Never trust a pink animal.

Again, not that I'm knowledgeable about this whole thing, it was always my assumption that the R value was to keep the cool out of the house to keep from having to cycle your furnace and waste energy. I didn't know insulation absorbed heat.

Again, not that I'm knowledgeable, but it would seem to me that if CO2 absorbs the infrared rays eventually saturating, the more CO2 only lowers the presence of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. And that it holds out the cold temperatures from space from coming in rather than providing heat back downwards. Perhaps it keeps us warmer longer in a day, but it offers no actual warming toward the surface. Once the sunny part of day is completed, the night will cool down, and only stay warmer if a cloud deck is present. That's why, IMO. It was 90 degrees during the day the other day and after the sun set our temperatures ended up down in the 60s. So CO2 did not add any warmth. And because it is saturated, continued to keep the cool of space at bay and the surface heat was like you said, held in.

For what it's worth from me and where my thoughts are.

 

[MomofOne]

Yet, your petrophobic tendencies persist...

15 years ago solar made up maybe 1gw of total worldwide energy...Today it is 150gw. A mind blowing increase.

In 1983 it was 40mw.
In 1976 it was 500kw

China added 12gw last year alone
America 4gw last year alone

each year that goes up.

Solar is a fact and I don't think it is insane to think it will grow to a fifth of energy needs by 2035.

Solar Energy increases the use if hydrocarbons.

I believe so, yes. Or let's put it this way, it contributed to the increase number of hydrocarbons produced.

 

[Crick]

15 years ago solar made up maybe 1gw of total worldwide energy...Today it is 150gw. A mind blowing increase.

In 1983 it was 40mw.
In 1976 it was 500kw

China added 12gw last year alone
America 4gw last year alone

each year that goes up.

Solar is a fact and I don't think it is insane to think it will grow to a fifth of energy needs by 2035.

Solar Energy increases the use if hydrocarbons.

I believe so, yes. Or let's put it this way, it contributed to the increase number of hydrocarbons produced.

Let's see the data

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Solar Energy increases the use if hydrocarbons.

I believe so, yes. Or let's put it this way, it contributed to the increase number of hydrocarbons produced.

Let's see the data

^ 500,000 year data set showing increase in temperature causing increase in CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They both prove that CO2 experiments were posted here. Thus they both prove that several deniers here lie through their teeth.

We skeptics acknowledged that experiments were posted...we also pointed out that none actually demonstrated what you claimed that they demonstrated...so, now that we have exposed yet another lie on your part, again, which one of those bits of side show slight of hand do you claim demonstrates that 100 or even 200 ppm of additional CO2 can have a measurable effect on the climate.

The video from Mythbusters very explicitly recreates actual atmospheric CO2 levels. And several deniers denied that any experiments had ever been posted.

Opsies.

Looks like its 73,480PPM

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that there has never been a single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature.

All the experiments that show an increase in temperature are due from additional air pressure

 

[Crick]

You know that? You do? Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.

SHOW US ONE.

 

[SSDD]

You know that? You do? Then, the records must be absolutely FILLED with attempts to show such warming that have failed.

SHOW US ONE.

Problem is that AGW believers go to extreme measures to hide information that doesn't support the hoax. All of the experiments thus far posted are certainly examples of failed attempts to support the hypothesis.

 

[Crick]

Claiming that you can't provide any evidence because those with whom you disagree have hidden the evidence is about as pathetic as you can get. We've been told on numerous occasions that the "real science" supports your position. WHAT real science? The work of Pielke Sr? Spencer? Soon & Bailunas? If, as you contend, there is no scientific evidence available supporting your claim, ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR OPINION?