Scientists Suggest Earth Could Be Uninhabitable In 300 Years

[RollingThunder]

In point of fact however they have never been able to generate a heating of a controlled atmosphere because of it.

So, pinhead, did you do the experiment I showed you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp. Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box. I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

 

[gslack]

So, pinhead, did you do the experiment I showed you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp. Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box. I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

LIAR!!!!!

If you really do have the brains you claim to have, you wouldn't have tried that little lie asshole.... You're pseudo-science bullshit is busted, and so are you...

only a complete idiot propagandist would attempt to pretend the black construction paper would not contribute to the radiation levels.... You are a dishonest hack....

 

[westwall]

So, pinhead, did you do the experiment I showed you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp. Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box. I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

Yeah right clown. Tell me again how black body radiation works? How about trying it with white paper...or better yet no paper. How about using the ambient (regulated of course)room temperature instead of a 150 watt heat source. You are a fool, it is really simple to make up a experiment that will give you the result you want. Any fraud can do that, they are called psychics, it's hard though, to set up a lab experiment that has no OUTSIDE influences.

Your fraudulent little experiment would make the temperature rise no matter what you put in the box....but you're not bright enough to figure that one out because you very clearly didn't even graduate high school.

It requires real talent to figure out how to back out all of the variables that will negatively or positively influence your experiment (remember cold fusion numbskull?). Yeah your experiment is real "scientific" allright.


What a tool.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp. Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box. I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

LIAR!!!!!

If you really do have the brains you claim to have, you wouldn't have tried that little lie asshole.... You're pseudo-science bullshit is busted, and so are you...

only a complete idiot propagandist would attempt to pretend the black construction paper would not contribute to the radiation levels.... You are a dishonest hack....

You are a retarded troll so it is no wonder that you are incapable of understanding this bit of science, slack-jawed-idiot. Crawl back in your hole.

 

[westwall]

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

LIAR!!!!!

If you really do have the brains you claim to have, you wouldn't have tried that little lie asshole.... You're pseudo-science bullshit is busted, and so are you...

only a complete idiot propagandist would attempt to pretend the black construction paper would not contribute to the radiation levels.... You are a dishonest hack....

You are a retarded troll so it is no wonder that you are incapable of understanding this bit of science, slack-jawed-idiot. Crawl back in your hole.

blunder,

That is not science...that is charlatanism. I know......it's a big word...look it up.

 

[Toro]

The OP seems a tad alarmist.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, doofus banansquash, I didn't because there is a simple flaw in the experiment and that is there is no way to calculate the amount of heating caused by the lamp. Nor is there a method of tracking the radiant heat generated by the black construction paper (called Black Body Radiation) so in other words it is a useless experiment because it will allways get hot because of the lamp and the radiant heat...not the CO2 in the box. I suggest you traipse down to a university and run this experiment by a physics prof and see how badly he laughs you off campus.

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

Yeah right clown. Tell me again how black body radiation works? How about trying it with white paper...or better yet no paper. How about using the ambient (regulated of course)room temperature instead of a 150 watt heat source. You are a fool, it is really simple to make up a experiment that will give you the result you want. Any fraud can do that, they are called psychics, it's hard though, to set up a lab experiment that has no OUTSIDE influences.

Your fraudulent little experiment would make the temperature rise no matter what you put in the box....but you're not bright enough to figure that one out because you very clearly didn't even graduate high school.

It requires real talent to figure out how to back out all of the variables that will negatively or positively influence your experiment (remember cold fusion numbskull?). Yeah your experiment is real "scientific" allright.

What a tool.

Did I say you were retarded, wispywalleyed. Oops, I meant SUPER-RETARDED!!!. LOL. You denier cultists and your pretensions of scientific understanding are such a joke.

You obviously are still unable to comprehend that experiment. It doesn't matter what color the paper is because it is the same in both cases. You use a lamp because the whole point is to observe the increased absorption of the energy in the light by the CO2 enriched flask as compared to the same setup with a flask of ordinary air. The experiment is designed to make the temperature rise in the two flasks. It demonstrates that the temperature rises more in the flask with extra CO2 in it. Same light source, same conditions, except for the extra CO2 in one flask.

I told you there were many such experiments that you could google up if you didn't like that one but as I expected, you aren't about to do anything that would demonstrate how wrong you are. Like a good little cultist, you are wedded to your dogmas and you don't want to see any evidence that would upset your fallacious cultic belief systems.

Here's another one of these standard experiments that they do in schools everywhere, this one from England.

The carbon dioxide greenhouse - is it effective?: a lab ICT test (teachers’ notes)

This exercise relates to the following sections of the English National Curriculum

English National Curriculum reference 3.3.2i, 3.2.5a, 3.4.5a, 4.2.5b, 4.2.5c, 4.3.2q

Topic

This activity aims to teach students about the thermal properties of carbon dioxide – the properties that make it a greenhouse gas.

Description

The activity consists of a demonstration in which a data logger is used to record the changing temperature of air and of carbon dioxide in plastic bottles as they are heated using electric lamps, and then allowed to cool. If a data logger is not available, then thermometers (0° -100°C range) can be used instead and monitored by pupils. The activity allows students to compare the thermal properties of carbon dioxide with those of air, and can be extended to compare water vapour as well. The gas which absorbs the most heat (infrared radiation) is the most effective greenhouse gas as in the atmosphere it would absorb more infrared coming from the Earth’s surface.

Context

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and associated global warming are often in the news – for example, coverage of an international environment summit (like that held in Johannesburg in 2002) or of local initiatives to cut carbon dioxide emissions (like ‘Walk to School Week’), or energy-saving initiatives in school. So, pupils are probably quite familiar with the main issues at stake in the global warming debate such as where the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from, what might be done to reduce emissions, and that the climatic consequences for Earth could be devastating. However, it is difficult to understand quite why a colourless, odourless gas like carbon dioxide should be such a villain. It is abundant in the air, plants need it to photosynthesise and we breathe it out – how can it be so damaging to have large amounts of it in the atmosphere? This activity demonstrates the invisible, thermal properties of carbon dioxide which are what makes it into such an effective greenhouse gas and thus contributes greatly to global warming.

Teaching points

Since the Industrial Revolution various industrial processes, including the combustion of fossil fuels, have led to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is considered by many scientists to be linked to an increase in the Earth’s average temperature. Since 1896 it has been known that the gases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide) help to stop the Sun’s infrared radiation being transmitted straight back into space again once it has been re-radiated by the Earth’s surface.

Much of the Sun’s radiation arrives as the Earth’s surface as light radiation. There much of it is absorbed and re-transmitted as infrared (heat) radiation. By letting most of the Sun’s light radiation through, and only letting a smaler amount of the resultant infrared radiation out again, these gases help to maintain the relatively warm temperatures that allow the oceans to exist and life to flourish on Earth. Because they act in a similar way to the glass panes of a greenhouse (ie letting in more light radiation from the Sun than they let infrared radiation out), they have been nicknamed ‘greenhouse gases’. So we need our greenhouse around the Earth to allow life to survive here. The problem is that human activities have disrupted the natural balance, pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than there would be naturally: levels have been raised measurably over the last century. What will be the effect on the Earth of increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? An enhanced greenhouse effect will probably lead to elevated global temperatures (a trend that may have already begun). This can lead to major climatic changes such as a change in rainfall patterns, changes in ocean circulation patterns, warming in some areas, dramatic cooling in others, rising sea levels and coastal flooding, due to melting ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater. All of these will have serious implications for agricultural productivity.

Apparatus

Data logger connected to a PC

Two external temperature probes or thermometers (0°C-100°C range) if data loggers and PC are not available

Two 2-litre plastic pop bottles

Two clamp stands, bosses and clamps

Carbon dioxide eg from a Soda Stream

Two heat lamps or flexible spot lights (at least 60 W)

Plasticine™

Safety

* Do not place the light bulbs too close to the plastic bottles as they will melt.

Activity and preparation

1. Prepare plastic pop bottles by removing the labels and drilling holes in the tops big enough to allow the temperature probes or thermometers to pass through
2. Set up clamp stands and heat lamps as shown in Figure 1.
3. Fill one of the bottles with carbon dioxide, screw the top on (with temperature probe / thermometer in place) and plug any gaps with Plasticine™.
4. Prepare the other bottle full of air by screwing on the top (with temperature probe / thermometer in place) and plug any gaps with Plasticine™.
5. Monitor the temperatures of both bottles until they are approximately the same. At this point switch on the heat lamps and start the recording.
6. After 20 minutes switch the heat lamps off but continue recording the temperatures for a further 20 minutes
7. Plot a graph of temperature against time for each bottle and compare the two results.

Figure 1 The experimental set up

Typical results

Even over a small time period such as 20 minutes we are still able to get a difference of 4°C in temperature between the two samples, the carbon dioxide warming more and faster than the air, see Figure 2. Students may not be impressed with such a small temperature difference in the laboratory. However it should be stressed that scientists are in general agreement that an average increase of just 2°C across the planet could have catastrophic effects on crop production and cause sea levels to increase significantly resulting in major flooding.

Figure 2 Typical results

 

[saveliberty]

Check out the experiment. The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle. The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle. The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle. The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle. Only a two degree difference. I'm surprised it isn't more.

 

[RollingThunder]

Check out the experiment. The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle. The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle. The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle. The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle. Only a two degree difference. I'm surprised it isn't more.

Are you insane? This is a guide for classroom experiments where it has been performed thousands of times. It is designed to create equal conditions for both bottles. The picture is an example, not a picture of the only time the experiment was performed or whatever the hell you think it is, Dufus. I'm looking at the picture and there is a black "stand" under both bottles. They are both two liter bottles. The temperature probes are inside the bottles, as you would know if you had actually read the experiment. That you did not read it is further illustrated by the fact that the difference in temperatures was 4°C, not 2°. You are an idiot.

 

[westwall]

Check out the experiment. The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle. The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle. The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle. The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle. Only a two degree difference. I'm surprised it isn't more.

Are you insane? This is a guide for classroom experiments where it has been performed thousands of times. It is designed to create equal conditions for both bottles. The picture is an example, not a picture of the only time the experiment was performed or whatever the hell you think it is, Dufus. I'm looking at the picture and there is a black "stand" under both bottles. They are both two liter bottles. The temperature probes are inside the bottles, as you would know if you had actually read the experiment. That you did not read it is further illustrated by the fact that the difference in temperatures was 4°C, not 2°. You are an idiot.

And it is NOT a robust experiment...look that one up too if you wish. These are all experiments that fail at the basic level of control of outside influences. Please take this photo to a university physics professor and see what he or she says. I dare you.

 

[RollingThunder]

Check out the experiment. The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle. The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle. The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle. The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle. Only a two degree difference. I'm surprised it isn't more.

Are you insane? This is a guide for classroom experiments where it has been performed thousands of times. It is designed to create equal conditions for both bottles. The picture is an example, not a picture of the only time the experiment was performed or whatever the hell you think it is, Dufus. I'm looking at the picture and there is a black "stand" under both bottles. They are both two liter bottles. The temperature probes are inside the bottles, as you would know if you had actually read the experiment. That you did not read it is further illustrated by the fact that the difference in temperatures was 4°C, not 2°. You are an idiot.

And it is NOT a robust experiment...look that one up too if you wish. These are all experiments that fail at the basic level of control of outside influences. Please take this photo to a university physics professor and see what he or she says. I dare you.

I'm afraid all that is just your ignorant and very unscientific opinion and has nothing to do with reality. The experiment is very simple and straightforward. There are no "outside influences" because there is just the two bottles and the same light passing through both of them. One bottle has more CO2 in it and consequently absorbs more of the infrared portion of the light and gets hotter. Your pretense that you know anything about physics or what physics professors would say is really pathetic.

In fact the physicists are pretty clear about their position.

Scientific opinion on climate change
(very partial list)

American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[30]

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

American Physical Society

In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[31]

Australian Institute of Physics

In 2005, the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) issued a science policy document in which they stated:

Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal.

Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth.[32]

European Physical Society

In 2007, the European Physical Society issued a position paper regarding energy:

The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.[33]

European Science Foundation

In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[34]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:

Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years.

Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.

The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[35]

Earth sciences

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[36] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

 

[westwall]

Are you insane? This is a guide for classroom experiments where it has been performed thousands of times. It is designed to create equal conditions for both bottles. The picture is an example, not a picture of the only time the experiment was performed or whatever the hell you think it is, Dufus. I'm looking at the picture and there is a black "stand" under both bottles. They are both two liter bottles. The temperature probes are inside the bottles, as you would know if you had actually read the experiment. That you did not read it is further illustrated by the fact that the difference in temperatures was 4°C, not 2°. You are an idiot.

And it is NOT a robust experiment...look that one up too if you wish. These are all experiments that fail at the basic level of control of outside influences. Please take this photo to a university physics professor and see what he or she says. I dare you.

I'm afraid all that is just your ignorant and very unscientific opinion and has nothing to do with reality. The experiment is very simple and straightforward. There are no "outside influences" because there is just the two bottles and the same light passing through both of them. One bottle has more CO2 in it and consequently absorbs more of the infrared portion of the light and gets hotter. Your pretense that you know anything about physics or what physics professors would say is really pathetic.

In fact the physicists are pretty clear about their position.

Scientific opinion on climate change
(very partial list)

American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[30]

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

American Physical Society

In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[31]

Australian Institute of Physics

In 2005, the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) issued a science policy document in which they stated:

Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal.

Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth.[32]

European Physical Society

In 2007, the European Physical Society issued a position paper regarding energy:

The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.[33]

European Science Foundation

In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[34]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:

Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years.

Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.

The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[35]

Earth sciences

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[36] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

And yet they forget Gay-Lussac's Law: The temperature of a gas is directly proportional to its pressure. So when you take a gas in solid form and allow it to change phase it increases the pressure in the container and raises the temperature inside. DUH!

To do a legit experiment like you wish you need approximately 4,000 cubic feet of controlled atmosphere (this mitigates the above gas law). It needs to be walled in by a fixed thickness of optically neautral glass or lexan. It needs to have direct access to sunlight (thus in a perfect world the boxes would both be outside with no overhead cover of any kind) there can be NO outside influence so the boxes must have the atmosphere introduced then hermetically sealed. The experiment must run for at least a month with temperature being checked every minute 24 hours a day. There are a whole host of other factors that need to be considered to make it a robust and verifiable experiment but this is a good start.

Your little high school "experiments" are cute but they are not valid. You could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result...that's why they are not valid.

 

[gslack]

I guess you really are retarded. LOL. The experiment is about measuring the difference in the temperatures of the flask with ordinary air and the flask with much higher CO2 content. The heat source is the same in both cases, you nitwit.

It is obvious that you have never been on a university campus.

LIAR!!!!!

If you really do have the brains you claim to have, you wouldn't have tried that little lie asshole.... You're pseudo-science bullshit is busted, and so are you...

only a complete idiot propagandist would attempt to pretend the black construction paper would not contribute to the radiation levels.... You are a dishonest hack....

You are a retarded troll so it is no wonder that you are incapable of understanding this bit of science, slack-jawed-idiot. Crawl back in your hole.

Hmmm, lets see....I take what you post and show what it actually says and means using sound logic and reason... And you search for anything you can find with a scientific body behind it and a scary headline, and post it without reading what it actually says.....

yeah sure sounds scientific to me.... Please continue Mr. Science wizz.....

 

[gslack]

Trolling blunder takes what Oldsocks does and tries to go bigger... Same nonsense, same misleading and generalized claims disregarding the truth in the data fro the sensationalism in the headlines.... Only this idiot thinks overloading with bullshit changes it somehow....

Well propaganda pushers like these two need to read a bit more of the Bernays PR manual.... They didn't understand much of it...

 

[saveliberty]

Check out the experiment. The white lamp (reflects light more) on the CO2 bottle. The black energy aborbing stand under the CO2 bottle. The CO2 bottle appears to be a little smaller volume bottle. The temperature probe that is closer to the CO2 bottle. Only a two degree difference. I'm surprised it isn't more.

Are you insane? This is a guide for classroom experiments where it has been performed thousands of times. It is designed to create equal conditions for both bottles. The picture is an example, not a picture of the only time the experiment was performed or whatever the hell you think it is, Dufus. I'm looking at the picture and there is a black "stand" under both bottles. They are both two liter bottles. The temperature probes are inside the bottles, as you would know if you had actually read the experiment. That you did not read it is further illustrated by the fact that the difference in temperatures was 4°C, not 2°. You are an idiot.

The conditions are not equal and I showed several reason why that is the case. The stands are not the same color. The CO2 one is definitely darker. While they may both be two liter bottles. The CO2 bottle is closer to the edge of the table (closer to the camera) yet is shorter. That means the bottle must be wider and thus closer to the heat source. Notice the light angle as well. This experiment is FUBAR from step one. Also, do we know that both bulbs are 60W? The directions say at least that wattage, but doesn't specify that both bulbs are the same. If you were smart, the idiot comment might have a bearing here.

 

[GHook93]

...is you will be long dead before you can be proven wrong! Then at that point it won't matter to ya!

 

[editec]

Ah yes the history of the earth.

Hot

Cold

Hot

Cold

Hot

Cold


Did I miss any?

I'm not sure...did you remember to mention hot?

How about cold?

You got them?

Well then, that's a pretty good summary.

So far mankind has been around for mostly not too hot with a few minor incidences of damn! it's too cold.

That last "damn it's too cold" incident (about 20,000 years ago) just about finished us off as a species, too.

 

[RollingThunder]

And it is NOT a robust experiment...look that one up too if you wish. These are all experiments that fail at the basic level of control of outside influences. Please take this photo to a university physics professor and see what he or she says. I dare you.

I'm afraid all that is just your ignorant and very unscientific opinion and has nothing to do with reality. The experiment is very simple and straightforward. There are no "outside influences" because there is just the two bottles and the same light passing through both of them. One bottle has more CO2 in it and consequently absorbs more of the infrared portion of the light and gets hotter. Your pretense that you know anything about physics or what physics professors would say is really pathetic.

In fact the physicists are pretty clear about their position.

Scientific opinion on climate change
(very partial list)

And yet they forget Gay-Lussac's Law: The temperature of a gas is directly proportional to its pressure. So when you take a gas in solid form and allow it to change phase it increases the pressure in the container and raises the temperature inside. DUH!

Duh! indeed. You are such a phony. What "solid form", nitwit? They are not putting dry ice in the bottle, they are using a source of CO2 gas. The pressures in the bottles are the same.

To do a legit experiment like you wish you need approximately 4,000 cubic feet of controlled atmosphere (this mitigates the above gas law). It needs to be walled in by a fixed thickness of optically neautral glass or lexan. It needs to have direct access to sunlight (thus in a perfect world the boxes would both be outside with no overhead cover of any kind) there can be NO outside influence so the boxes must have the atmosphere introduced then hermetically sealed. The experiment must run for at least a month with temperature being checked every minute 24 hours a day. There are a whole host of other factors that need to be considered to make it a robust and verifiable experiment but this is a good start.

Your little high school "experiments" are cute but they are not valid. You could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result...that's why they are not valid.

That is total horseshit, retard. You have no idea what you're talking about. These experiments, and there are many of them summarized on various educational websites, each one with slightly different procedures and setups, demonstrate a simple principle. Certain gases absorb infrared radiation and, BTW, argon is not one of them (so you're wrong about that too). Thousands of physics teachers in many countries at the high school level and college and university level, have used these experiments in their classes. But you're the only one to spot the "flaws". LOL. You are an ignorant little shithead with no real knowledge of science or physics, despite your ridiculous pretensions to the contrary.

Here's another similar experiment from Arizona State University with a different setup.

GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN THE CLASSROOM: A PROJECT- AND LABORATORY-BASED CURRICULUM

 

[westwall]

I'm afraid all that is just your ignorant and very unscientific opinion and has nothing to do with reality. The experiment is very simple and straightforward. There are no "outside influences" because there is just the two bottles and the same light passing through both of them. One bottle has more CO2 in it and consequently absorbs more of the infrared portion of the light and gets hotter. Your pretense that you know anything about physics or what physics professors would say is really pathetic.

In fact the physicists are pretty clear about their position.

Scientific opinion on climate change
(very partial list)

And yet they forget Gay-Lussac's Law: The temperature of a gas is directly proportional to its pressure. So when you take a gas in solid form and allow it to change phase it increases the pressure in the container and raises the temperature inside. DUH!

Duh! indeed. You are such a phony. What "solid form", nitwit? They are not putting dry ice in the bottle, they are using a source of CO2 gas. The pressures in the bottles are the same.

To do a legit experiment like you wish you need approximately 4,000 cubic feet of controlled atmosphere (this mitigates the above gas law). It needs to be walled in by a fixed thickness of optically neautral glass or lexan. It needs to have direct access to sunlight (thus in a perfect world the boxes would both be outside with no overhead cover of any kind) there can be NO outside influence so the boxes must have the atmosphere introduced then hermetically sealed. The experiment must run for at least a month with temperature being checked every minute 24 hours a day. There are a whole host of other factors that need to be considered to make it a robust and verifiable experiment but this is a good start.

Your little high school "experiments" are cute but they are not valid. You could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result...that's why they are not valid.

That is total horseshit, retard. You have no idea what you're talking about. These experiments, and there are many of them summarized on various educational websites, each one with slightly different procedures and setups, demonstrate a simple principle. Certain gases absorb infrared radiation and, BTW, argon is not one of them (so you're wrong about that too). Thousands of physics teachers in many countries at the high school level and college and university level, have used these experiments in their classes. But you're the only one to spot the "flaws". LOL. You are an ignorant little shithead with no real knowledge of science or physics, despite your ridiculous pretensions to the contrary.

Here's another similar experiment from Arizona State University with a different setup.

GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN THE CLASSROOM: A PROJECT- AND LABORATORY-BASED CURRICULUM

I chose argon specifically because it is inert you dolt. The CO2 in experiment one was generated by the introduction of oh let's see what was it???? Oh yeah dry ice! A SOLID form of CO2 you dimwit! When it vaporises it increases the pressure of the container and increases the heat.....simple high school physics which you neglected to take. The second was introduced by now what was it???? Oh yeah A SODA STREAM in other words a LIQUID form you pinhead! If you are going to try and BS your way through a science discussion best not to do it with a real scientist moron, you only look even more stupid than you probably are....probably....you really may be this stupid based on your pathetic ability to reason....maybe you are just a real smart Australopithecine?

 

[saveliberty]

I'm afraid all that is just your ignorant and very unscientific opinion and has nothing to do with reality. The experiment is very simple and straightforward. There are no "outside influences" because there is just the two bottles and the same light passing through both of them. One bottle has more CO2 in it and consequently absorbs more of the infrared portion of the light and gets hotter. Your pretense that you know anything about physics or what physics professors would say is really pathetic.

In fact the physicists are pretty clear about their position.

Scientific opinion on climate change
(very partial list)

And yet they forget Gay-Lussac's Law: The temperature of a gas is directly proportional to its pressure. So when you take a gas in solid form and allow it to change phase it increases the pressure in the container and raises the temperature inside. DUH!

Duh! indeed. You are such a phony. What "solid form", nitwit? They are not putting dry ice in the bottle, they are using a source of CO2 gas. The pressures in the bottles are the same.

To do a legit experiment like you wish you need approximately 4,000 cubic feet of controlled atmosphere (this mitigates the above gas law). It needs to be walled in by a fixed thickness of optically neautral glass or lexan. It needs to have direct access to sunlight (thus in a perfect world the boxes would both be outside with no overhead cover of any kind) there can be NO outside influence so the boxes must have the atmosphere introduced then hermetically sealed. The experiment must run for at least a month with temperature being checked every minute 24 hours a day. There are a whole host of other factors that need to be considered to make it a robust and verifiable experiment but this is a good start.

Your little high school "experiments" are cute but they are not valid. You could introduce pure Argon into your experiments and get the same result...that's why they are not valid.

That is total horseshit, retard. You have no idea what you're talking about. These experiments, and there are many of them summarized on various educational websites, each one with slightly different procedures and setups, demonstrate a simple principle. Certain gases absorb infrared radiation and, BTW, argon is not one of them (so you're wrong about that too). Thousands of physics teachers in many countries at the high school level and college and university level, have used these experiments in their classes. But you're the only one to spot the "flaws". LOL. You are an ignorant little shithead with no real knowledge of science or physics, despite your ridiculous pretensions to the contrary.

Here's another similar experiment from Arizona State University with a different setup.

GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN THE CLASSROOM: A PROJECT- AND LABORATORY-BASED CURRICULUM

The biggest flaw of all is the closed system is not a model of the Earth idiot. Also your system and experiment allow for no time to balance the CO2 cycle.