Post the Experiment

[IanC]

I dont think we can read into the MB experiment what isnt there.

That's right. I think Billy is doing that.

the controls were standard air, they added massive amounts of CO2 and methane far beyond what is naturally present.

Yes the added GHGs were larger in percentage but smaller in total projected cross-section. So the experiment is unrealistic both ways in quantifying atmospheric physics. However I think that it does demonstrate qualitative aspects. Those who don't believe in back-radiation at all will have a hard time explaining the results unless they resort to unsubstantiated bold claims (like SSDD)

I have repeatedly called for a realistic experiment using actual natural numbers. The temp increase would be small but present. Unfortunately all we have are experiments like this that compare at 200:1. And most of the others are outright fraud, like Gore/Bye.

 

[Wuwei]

I dont think we can read into the MB experiment what isnt there.

That's right. I think Billy is doing that.

the controls were standard air, they added massive amounts of CO2 and methane far beyond what is naturally present.

Yes the added GHGs were larger in percentage but smaller in total projected cross-section. So the experiment is unrealistic both ways in quantifying atmospheric physics. However I think that it does demonstrate qualitative aspects. Those who don't believe in back-radiation at all will have a hard time explaining the results unless they resort to unsubstantiated bold claims (like SSDD)

I have repeatedly called for a realistic experiment using actual natural numbers. The temp increase would be small but present. Unfortunately all we have are experiments like this that compare at 200:1. And most of the others are outright fraud, like Gore/Bye.

As I said before I don't think a realistic experiment is possible. It would require a very tall box cooled to liquid helium temperatures at the top with the sides of the box having a low specific heat and highly insulated

I don't think using an increased percentage is unnatural if the total cross-section of CO2 matches the atmospheric column.

I have not seen the other experiment.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I dont think we can read into the MB experiment what isnt there.

That's right. I think Billy is doing that.

the controls were standard air, they added massive amounts of CO2 and methane far beyond what is naturally present.

Yes the added GHGs were larger in percentage but smaller in total projected cross-section. So the experiment is unrealistic both ways in quantifying atmospheric physics. However I think that it does demonstrate qualitative aspects. Those who don't believe in back-radiation at all will have a hard time explaining the results unless they resort to unsubstantiated bold claims (like SSDD)

I have repeatedly called for a realistic experiment using actual natural numbers. The temp increase would be small but present. Unfortunately all we have are experiments like this that compare at 200:1. And most of the others are outright fraud, like Gore/Bye.

As I said before I don't think a realistic experiment is possible. It would require a very tall box cooled to liquid helium temperatures at the top with the sides of the box having a low specific heat and highly insulated

I don't think using an increased percentage is unnatural if the total cross-section of CO2 matches the atmospheric column.

I have not seen the other experiment.

Even an experiment like you suggest would fail empirical review as it can not replicate the cross winds and the upward convection cycle through differing densities of atmosphere. We might get an idea of what is possible but without the other natural processes acting (Coriolis effect and convection) we will simply be getting a very rudimentary number.

The Bill Nye experiment done with Al Gore was extremely bad. they cut the tape and had to redo the experiment many times as it failed each time. They ultimately falsified it to obtain the desired result. Its what i would expect from a person who has no clue about Coriolis rotation and placing a southern hemisphere cyclone in the norther hemisphere on the front of his book. Fabrication is his modis operandi.

 

[Wuwei]

Even an experiment like you suggest would fail empirical review as it can not replicate the cross winds and the upward convection cycle through differing densities of atmosphere. We might get an idea of what is possible but without the other natural processes acting (Coriolis effect and convection) we will simply be getting a very rudimentary number.

Exactly. However when scientists are studying a specific concept, they want to isolate that concept from other influences. The idea of the experiment is to understand the contribution of CO2 to the picture, not to generate and simulate the entire atmosphere. I think you are being unrealistic in your expectations of the type of experiment you would like to see. As I said earlier the type of experiment you describe is virtually impossible.

The Bill Nye experiment done with Al Gore was extremely bad....

Do you have a link to that experiment? I would like to see it for entertainment purposes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is the story----->> Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment Watts Up With That

The commentary and the video are hilarious..

 

[Wuwei]

Here is the story----->> Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment Watts Up With That

The commentary and the video are hilarious..

I wouldn't call that Gore's or Nye's experiment. I bet it was done by a video company with lots of props, toy trains, toy factories and misc. file footage, and yes, a fake experiment. Nye furnished the voice over. That was Nye's failure, and he should be soundly condemned for sanctioning that experiment and implying that “you can replicate this experiment yourself.”

I didn't see any mention of them redoing the experiment many times. Where did you get that.
I didn't see anywhere that Al Gore was involved. Where did that come from?

It is too bad that there are zealots on both sides of the controversy. They confuse the public. Here are some laughable comments from the other side.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that “CO2 is 3% of the total atmosphere.”... “Human activity contributes 3% of that 3%. “

John Boehner said in 2009
“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”

Ironically he calls it comical when he is the inadvertent comic. Who said CO2 is a carcinogen? I think he is referring to cow farts when he says, “when they do what they do”. Maybe Boehner's farts are CO2, but a cows is methane.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is the story----->> Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment Watts Up With That

The commentary and the video are hilarious..

I wouldn't call that Gore's or Nye's experiment. I bet it was done by a video company with lots of props, toy trains, toy factories and misc. file footage, and yes, a fake experiment. Nye furnished the voice over. That was Nye's failure, and he should be soundly condemned for sanctioning that experiment and implying that “you can replicate this experiment yourself.”

I didn't see any mention of them redoing the experiment many times. Where did you get that.
I didn't see anywhere that Al Gore was involved. Where did that come from?

It is too bad that there are zealots on both sides of the controversy. They confuse the public. Here are some laughable comments from the other side.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that “CO2 is 3% of the total atmosphere.”... “Human activity contributes 3% of that 3%. “

John Boehner said in 2009
“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”

Ironically he calls it comical when he is the inadvertent comic. Who said CO2 is a carcinogen? I think he is referring to cow farts when he says, “when they do what they do”. Maybe Boehner's farts are CO2, but a cows is methane.

Both Boehner and Backmann are technically correct when taken in full context. Funny how you took the misdirection and purposeful misinterpretation of their comments as factual.

Bachmann is absolutely correct with her assessment of the earths atmospherics composition and mans contribution.

As to Bohner's comments it pays to understand what he was talking about. Cattle like humans do emit CO2. Cattle also emit a large amounts of other gases just like humans do when they eat vegetable matter. You seemed to gloss over these points calling these people pointless and uneducated.

These are Jr High school and Alyinsky tactics. Just as you failed to read the links to Nye's experiment and the reproduction that Gore fabricated. The article I linked to showed definitive proof that Nye lied and that Gore followed suit as well.

 

[mamooth]

The Mythbusters experiment did not add 7% CO2.

Anyone who says it did should simply be laughed out of the room, as such Alinsky devotees can't be taken seriously.

 

[Wuwei]

Both Boehner and Backmann are technically correct when taken in full context.

I looked at the full context of their speeches. They were both quite off base.

Bachmann is absolutely correct with her assessment of the earths atmospherics composition and mans contribution.

Bachmann clearly said, "The carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of the total atmosphere thats in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart, and you have all of Earths atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of that total."

Do you believe that? Everyone else believes that it is 0.4%. Your picture says something different. It says CO2 is 3.62% of the greenhouse gases, not 3% of the total atmosphere.
Both you and Bachmann are confused about percentages.

As to Bohner's comments it pays to understand what he was talking about. Cattle like humans do emit CO2. Cattle also emit a large amounts of other gases just like humans do when they eat vegetable matter.

I understand, but I don't think you or Bohner does. Who ever said CO2 is a carcinogen? He is putting words in the mouths of AGW. A strawman. I think he is referring to cow farts when he says, “when they do what they do” he thinks cows fart CO2, not methane

You seemed to gloss over these points calling these people pointless and uneducated.

Where did I ever call them that? They are ignorant of the science, but that does not mean pointless or uneducated.

These are Jr High school and Alyinsky tactics. Just as you failed to read the links to Nye's experiment and the reproduction that Gore fabricated. The article I linked to showed definitive proof that Nye lied and that Gore followed suit as well.

If you reread my post you would see that I said Nye "should be soundly condemned for sanctioning that experiment..." So why are you criticizing me when I agree with you.
I really don't understand where you are coming from. You misunderstood almost every thing I posted, and criticize me for things that I did not say.

 

[Wuwei]

The Mythbusters experiment did not add 7% CO2.

Anyone who says it did should simply be laughed out of the room, as such Alinsky devotees can't be taken seriously.

I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say. There was a chart in the movie that had 7% on it, but there was no verbal mention.

 

[jc456]

The Mythbusters experiment did not add 7% CO2.

Anyone who says it did should simply be laughed out of the room, as such Alinsky devotees can't be taken seriously.

even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.

 

[Wuwei]

even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.

I hope you are not referring to me. In my previous post I said "I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say." I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content.

 

[jc456]

even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.

I hope you are not referring to me. In my previous post I said "I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say." I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content.

yep you. why did you assume 7% then?

 

[Wuwei]

even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.

I hope you are not referring to me. In my previous post I said "I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say." I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content.

yep you. why did you assume 7% then?

Please reread my reply. I said,
"I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content."
I was assuming a worse case scenario. If I assumed a lower percentage that would have made the experiment even more convincing.

 

[jc456]

even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.

I hope you are not referring to me. In my previous post I said "I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say." I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content.

yep you. why did you assume 7% then?

Please reread my reply. I said,
"I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content."
I was assuming a worse case scenario. If I assumed a lower percentage that would have made the experiment even more convincing.

but why did you write 7%? Because it said so on the screen right?

 

[Wuwei]

but why did you write 7%? Because it said so on the screen right?

It was a fleeting glimpse of a piece of paper, but there was no mention of that being the actual percentage used. I used it because I knew there would be no controversy in assuming that number and no distracting arguments about the actual percentage.

 

[jc456]

but why did you write 7%? Because it said so on the screen right?

It was a fleeting glimpse of a piece of paper, but there was no mention of that being the actual percentage used. I used it because I knew there would be no controversy in assuming that number and no distracting arguments about the actual percentage.

however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.

 

[Wuwei]

however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.

I'm sure it was measured, and they should have explicitly said what it was. It seems that they probably fed it 7% which is higher than the atmosphere in density, but only equivalent to only about 500 feet in altitude. So it's not all that much for the purposes they were after - a demo.

 

[mamooth]

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.

 

[Wuwei]

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.

Thanks, that makes me honest. I only used 7% so the current argument wouldn't happen. It seems that I was right in predicting that.