Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My God, you have achieved the impossible. You are getting beat down so badly, and the tenderizing is so thorough, that you have actually made me feel sorry for you.Then why do NO climate scientists or, for that matter, scientists of any other field, concur with your claim? Why aren't they outraged? Why doesn't someone in the several thousand people working for the IPCC spill the beans? Why haven't they been caught falsifying data?
And if none of this happens, where the FUCK do you get the idea you've got evidence for as perfect and massive a conspiracy as your bullshit contention would require?
I understand perfectly what she proved...she demonstrated a phenomenon known as the heat of compression and compared common air to a gas that is more dense than air....nothing more...nothing lessYou still don't understand that she proved CO2 warms by radiation. It was such a simple experiment too. You don't understand that any compression would come from heat. Heat in the cylinder was not caused by compression. In short heat causes higher pressure.
Just remember:
Your cult puts out such interesting propaganda.. Their propaganda ministry is very active. But then, the cultists do need to be kept hysterical. If they're allowed to calm down and think, they'd leave the cult.
So, what's your theory of climate, and what hard data would falsify it?
That is the thread topic, yet every denier is running from it.
It's very clear that all the deniers here know full well that their cult is pushing pseudoscience. They don't care. The cult tells them to push it, so that's what they're going to do.
Just remember:
Your cult puts out such interesting propaganda.. Their propaganda ministry is very active. But then, the cultists do need to be kept hysterical. If they're allowed to calm down and think, they'd leave the cult.
So, what's your theory of climate, and what hard data would falsify it?
That is the thread topic, yet every denier is running from it.
It's very clear that all the deniers here know full well that their cult is pushing pseudoscience. They don't care. The cult tells them to push it, so that's what they're going to do.
Try and think deeper about this. Start with the ideal gas law:I understand perfectly what she proved...she demonstrated a phenomenon known as the heat of compression and compared common air to a gas that is more dense than air....nothing more...nothing less
Hilarious that you were fooled...
Try and think deeper about this. Start with the ideal gas law:I understand perfectly what she proved...she demonstrated a phenomenon known as the heat of compression and compared common air to a gas that is more dense than air....nothing more...nothing less
Hilarious that you were fooled...
PV=nRT
As the closed cylinders heated up in Foote's experiment, the constants were Volume V, n and R. Thus,
P= T * nR / V , orNote that when T increases, P also linearly follows the rise. It's that simple. That is a pressure increase, not a compression.
P = T * constant.
Look up "heat of compression". That refers to a change of volume causing heat. Look up a diesel engine. The pressure of the piston decreases the volume in the cylinder and causes heat.
That is not the same as heat caused by a rise in temperature. You got things totally wrong. You are confusing "pressure" with "compression". The words have some relation but are not the same.
.
A). I'm a cult of one.
B). Myself and others have already presented hard, irrefutable data many times
C). Every great naysayer climate monger from Al Gore on down has gotten it totally wrong!
D). History is replete with sudden freezes and warmings where huge changes were wrought upon the flora and fauna by no other force than earth herself.
Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor
you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...
Again, dumbass, there is no heat of compression. A pressure increase due to heating the gas is _not_ compression.
Even when the observable, measurable evidence is right in front of you, you don't get it
But we've seen the evidence. The mythbusters experiment was not absolutely airtight, so there was no heat of compression. It did exactly what you asked for. The CO2 chamber got a lot hotter. The real world says you're wrong, as usual.
According to your idiot compression theory, if I heat a basketball even a tiny bit, perhaps by placing it in the sunlight, the air inside will increase pressure, which will create more heat, which will create more pressure, creating more heat, creating more pressure, and on and on until the basketball explodes.
Since that doesn't happen, what does that tell you about your theory?
Who just happens to conveniently parrot the OfficialPartyLine, as presented by the PartyApprovedConspiracyBlogs.A). I'm a cult of one.
Sorry but one year of bad weather is just that; one year of bad weather. There is a big difference between climate and weather. An example would be that England has a maritime climate while central Australia has an arid climate. Today's weather is warm and sunny with perhaps a chance of a shower.The winter weather in the United States this year should show that the climate is changing.
Some are, Curry for one.
In 2013, Curry's "stadium waves" theory predicted steady or declining temperatures, starting immediately.
That was followed immediate by 3 years of record-breaking warming.
She was as wrong as it was possible to be. She never explained why, or tried to modify her awful science that made that prediction. Instead, she screamed that everyone was persecuting her, and fled science completely. Her new chosen career was taking bribes from fossil-fuel interests in return for giving speeches they liked.
Because her science is crap, she's ignored. Except, that is, by failure-worshipping cultists. All denier "scientists" have that in common, failing at any actual science.
Because AGW science keeps making predictions that come true, it's not ignored. It's accepted by the whole intelligent world.
You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...
Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...
Fantasy record breaking warming silly kitty.
You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...
Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...
Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.
You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.
And the one filled with CO2 will cool faster than the one with standard atmospheric composition. They seem to ignore that little fact...You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...
Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...
Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.
You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.
If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..