Post the Experiment

[Wuwei]

Of course there is a retreat on the warmers part!

Not my retreat. What retreat is that?

Here on this board the mythbuster experiment was claimed to be a realistic change of GHGs instead 200 times reality. The show itself brought in a specialist to measure 'minute quantities'. Perhaps it was only misdirection and implication rather than outright lies but it was still dishonest.

Of course the mythbuster experiment was a lot of showmanship, with melting ice figures and a scientist brought in to illustrate legitimacy. To me what they showed is that CO2 and CH4 act as GHGs in the sense that they provide a “blanketing” effect. I agree that they didn't show anything that would “prove” what warmers believe in climate change. And yes it could easily lead the more scientifically naive to think that mythbusters did prove the warmer's stance of AGW. In short, what the mythbusters showed was what was already believed by warmer and denier scientists anyway: trivial properties of GHGs.

The Gore/Nye experiment was an outright lie. Many other 'high school' experiments have been trotted out as proof of CO2's effect while implying they showing change at realistic increases.

I already said in a previous post that I thought the video that Nye narrated was staged. I never defended their experiment.

Now you come along and say only an Earth sized experiment can produce the results. Why didn't you and your cohorts say that from the beginning instead of making us show your claims were bullshit?

Now I come along? I already had stated my above views many posts back. You keep reading things into my posts and criticizing me for them. Try to distinguish me from "my cohorts."

 

[Wuwei]

Actually it is... Only an alarmist would not want his lie exposed. The experiment is possible, if done in sections. A simple box filled with CO2 is not.

Please explain how you think the experiment could be done in sections.

 

[IanC]

Of course there is a retreat on the warmers part!

Not my retreat. What retreat is that?

Here on this board the mythbuster experiment was claimed to be a realistic change of GHGs instead 200 times reality. The show itself brought in a specialist to measure 'minute quantities'. Perhaps it was only misdirection and implication rather than outright lies but it was still dishonest.

Of course the mythbuster experiment was a lot of showmanship, with melting ice figures and a scientist brought in to illustrate legitimacy. To me what they showed is that CO2 and CH4 act as GHGs in the sense that they provide a “blanketing” effect. I agree that they didn't show anything that would “prove” what warmers believe in climate change. And yes it could easily lead the more scientifically naive to think that mythbusters did prove the warmer's stance of AGW. In short, what the mythbusters showed was what was already believed by warmer and denier scientists anyway: trivial properties of GHGs.

The Gore/Nye experiment was an outright lie. Many other 'high school' experiments have been trotted out as proof of CO2's effect while implying they showing change at realistic increases.

I already said in a previous post that I thought the video that Nye narrated was staged. I never defended their experiment.

Now you come along and say only an Earth sized experiment can produce the results. Why didn't you and your cohorts say that from the beginning instead of making us show your claims were bullshit?

Now I come along? I already had stated my above views many posts back. You keep reading things into my posts and criticizing me for them. Try to distinguish me from "my cohorts."

You remind me of all the so called 'honest' climate scientists that said nothing during the Mann fiasco and the climategate emails that proved the dishonesty. You do little to fix the misperceptions and then claim 'it wasn't me'.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

 

[IanC]

Actually it is... Only an alarmist would not want his lie exposed. The experiment is possible, if done in sections. A simple box filled with CO2 is not.

Please explain how you think the experiment could be done in sections.

Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.

 

[Wuwei]

TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.

I don't know where you are coming from. I have said nothing about your current concerns. Are you trying to provide a retort to what I posted? Are you still saying that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. Are you proposing that the experiment in question should include water vapor?

 

[IanC]

Water vapour is not a well mixed gas. It takes the energy up to the cloud tops were it is released by precipitation due to the lapse rate.

 

[Wuwei]

You remind me of all the so called 'honest' climate scientists that said nothing during the Mann fiasco and the climategate emails that proved the dishonesty. You do little to fix the misperceptions and then claim 'it wasn't me'.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

Just how do I remind you of those people?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.

 

[Wuwei]

Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.

Why? It will just show the logarithmic effect. That is already well known.

 

[Wuwei]

Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.

It is way too difficult to emulate that in a laboratory. As I said many times, heat loss from the earth is at the TOA where it is very cold and at a low pressure. If you have an easy lab experiment in mind that will emulate that, please describe it.

 

[IanC]

Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.

Why? It will just show the logarithmic effect. That is already well known.

Why????

What will be the result? Zero to a rounding or measurement error. Do you believe that most laymen know that? Is it honest to let them believe that it would make a 'big' difference?

 

[Wuwei]

Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.

Why? It will just show the logarithmic effect. That is already well known.

Why????

What will be the result? Zero to a rounding or measurement error. Do you believe that most laymen know that? Is it honest to let them believe that it would make a 'big' difference?

If you are talking about a 3 foot box, of course the result will be zero. At 400 ppm the penetration depth of CO2 resonant radiation in the atmosphere is 30 feet before it strikes another CO2 molecule. Good luck with hitting anything in a 3 ft box. Under those circumstances is it honest to pretend that a null result is what happens in the dozens of miles of earth atmosphere?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.

It is way too difficult to emulate that in a laboratory. As I said many times, heat loss from the earth is at the TOA where it is very cold and at a low pressure. If you have an easy lab experiment in mind that will emulate that, please describe it.

So we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds afetr the Big Bang in a lab, but we can't test for a 120PPM difference in CO2 because that's "way too difficult"

 

[IanC]

Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.

Why? It will just show the logarithmic effect. That is already well known.

Why????

What will be the result? Zero to a rounding or measurement error. Do you believe that most laymen know that? Is it honest to let them believe that it would make a 'big' difference?

If you are talking about a 3 foot box, of course the result will be zero. At 400 ppm the penetration depth of CO2 resonant radiation in the atmosphere is 30 feet before it strikes another CO2 molecule. Good luck with hitting anything in a 3 ft box. Under those circumstances is it honest to pretend that a null result is what happens in the dozens of miles of earth atmosphere?

Get your facts straight. The extinction length for CO2 is 10 meters. At one meter more than 90% of the CO2 specific radiation has been absorbed.

 

[IanC]

Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.

It is way too difficult to emulate that in a laboratory. As I said many times, heat loss from the earth is at the TOA where it is very cold and at a low pressure. If you have an easy lab experiment in mind that will emulate that, please describe it.

So we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds afetr the Big Bang in a lab, but we can't test for a 120PPM difference in CO2 because that's "way too difficult"

As I have said before, the experiment has already been done many times. The results are so weak that no one would publicize them.

 

[Wuwei]

So we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds afetr the Big Bang in a lab, but we can't test for a 120PPM difference in CO2 because that's "way too difficult"

If you can conceive an experiment that would reliably test what is happening in the earths atmosphere from bottom to top, then try to get funding I think you would find that way too difficult. Funding will have to come from a grant from an interested party. Oil companies, coal companies or the Koch brothers would be the best bet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.

I don't know where you are coming from. I have said nothing about your current concerns. Are you trying to provide a retort to what I posted? Are you still saying that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. Are you proposing that the experiment in question should include water vapor?

CO2 is not an impediment to the convection cycle. It is in fact a thinning factor allowing faster convection rates. This is one reason that CO2 can not trap heat in our atmosphere. TOA measurements show that the heat is being released to space DESPITE a rise in CO2. Showing by empirical evidence that CO2 is not a blanket covering the earth to keep it warm. The heat is escaping DESPITE the rise in your coveted GHG CO2.

Its simple Physics... Atmospheric physics..

 

[IanC]

TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.

I don't know where you are coming from. I have said nothing about your current concerns. Are you trying to provide a retort to what I posted? Are you still saying that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. Are you proposing that the experiment in question should include water vapor?

CO2 is not an impediment to the convection cycle. It is in fact a thinning factor allowing faster convection rates. This is one reason that CO2 can not trap heat in our atmosphere. TOA measurements show that the heat is being released to space DESPITE a rise in CO2. Showing by empirical evidence that CO2 is not a blanket covering the earth to keep it warm. The heat is escaping DESPITE the rise in your coveted GHG CO2.

Its simple Physics... Atmospheric physics..

CO2 impedes the free escape of 15 micron IR radiation. Especially at the surface boundary. Get over it because it's true. I won't even ask you to provide links that say otherwise because there is no doubt. This part of CO2 theory really is settled science.

As to your claim that CO2 is a lubricant, I would need a coherent physics explanation which I haven't seen you produce.

 

[Billy_Bob]

TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.

I don't know where you are coming from. I have said nothing about your current concerns. Are you trying to provide a retort to what I posted? Are you still saying that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. Are you proposing that the experiment in question should include water vapor?

CO2 is not an impediment to the convection cycle. It is in fact a thinning factor allowing faster convection rates. This is one reason that CO2 can not trap heat in our atmosphere. TOA measurements show that the heat is being released to space DESPITE a rise in CO2. Showing by empirical evidence that CO2 is not a blanket covering the earth to keep it warm. The heat is escaping DESPITE the rise in your coveted GHG CO2.

Its simple Physics... Atmospheric physics..

CO2 impedes the free escape of 15 micron IR radiation. Especially at the surface boundary. Get over it because it's true. I won't even ask you to provide links that say otherwise because there is no doubt. This part of CO2 theory really is settled science.

As to your claim that CO2 is a lubricant, I would need a coherent physics explanation which I haven't seen you produce.

15 microns at SURFACE LEVEL. As you go higher in height the close proximity of CO2 becomes greater in distance allowing atmospheric water vapor to trap and emit that latent heat at higher altitude, through the convection cycle, effectively stopping the ability of CO2 to act as a thermal layer. It is the interaction of a negative feedback.

CO2 can most certainly absorb and re-emit at 15 microns, it is the amount of space between molecules and what else is present that determines if it can act positively or negatively.

Near surface we have higher concentration of water vapor. Higher concentrations of CO2 near surface allow turning over of that near surface atmosphere to happen faster (radiative transfer). As CO2 is not well mixed in the height of the column (390ppm at surface, 300ppm at 1,500 feet, 195ppm at 5,000 feet, etc) the saturation of molecules will not allow interaction and trapping of heat. At just 30,000 feet the CO2 level is a mere 25-50 ppm. As the CO2 levels increase in the air mass, turnover increases near surface and once the heat is past 10,000 feet there is virtually nothing that will stop its release back into space.

One of the major alarmist points about sever weather increasing is this rapid turnover in the lower troposphere. What they fail to understand is that once the heat is above the first cloud layers its gone. No amount of increased CO2 will stop it. The lack of a mid point heat bubble indicates that the rise is not impeded in any way by CO2.

The convection cycle is not impeded but it is most certainly enhanced near surface level due to thermal transfer.

 

[jc456]

well we'll disagree with you ok?

Sure. I won't hold it against you. But remember that the experiment is not possible and to continually bump up this thread is not constructive.

All I want all the warmers to claim is, there is no experiment. If that is so, then how does one prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does all the nasty things the warmers claim? That is what I'm trying to highlight. But I get, there are thousands of experiments that show that. One Thousand Experiments. You come on here and say it ain't possible. So somewhere the message is wrong. You are only one of many on here stating that CO2 is bad. At least that seemed to be the direction you were heading.

I'm personally tired of the use of words like; extreme. extraordinary and alarming rate, when factually speaking they know absolutely nothing other than the amount of CO2 has increased. And, it was much much higher in history of the planet without any affects as the words indicate. So, I ask, what is it folks who don't agree with the rant supposed to do? I'll tell you, shout everywhere the lie. And if no experiment can be produced or ran, then I call bullshit of epic proportion on all the warmers. oh and they can all kiss my ass.