This is not a good day for Anthropogenic Global Warming Fanatics. There is hardly a wind generator turning in England. We have record low temperatures and “The Global Warming Policy Foundation” is pushing its message home.
@malshy CO2 is not an aerosol so it does not 'lower radiation from the Sun' and heat can't be dissipated into space via convection. The atmosphere warms from the ground up. The black body curve for the Earth starts at about 4 microns while for the Sun it ends at 4 microns. This is the point at which shortwave radiation becomes longwave radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation dependent on their resonance frequencies. You are wrong.
G. V. CHILINGAR, L. F. KHILYUK, and O. G. SOROKHTIN, 2008, Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission, Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1–9, 2008 ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online DOI: 10.1080/15567030701568727
This is a demonstration of physical fact: CO2 absorbing infrared light. Deciding what this means for the atmosphere takes more scrutiny, but this is a piece of the puzzle.
Wow, I'm looking at comments here. I thought malshy was rather uninformed. Can I say science retarded for many of them? Because honestly I feel that's the best description of them.
@malshy You are so wrong. It doesn't demonstrate that at all. The sun radiates to the Earth in UV, the candle isn't radiating as the Sun would. CO2 traps IR radiation. Please learn a little before making such comments.
Sorry kid, you can't fool me for a second you are completely uneducated in thermodynamics, physics and critical thinking -it so flagrantly obvious. Let me try to explain this in a way even an uneducated mind like yourself can understand. Electricity running through a wire releases heat into its surrounding. Does that mean if i turn on my air conditioner i am heating up my room because the air condition have wires with electricity running through them? The answer is no.
@Navila1 Please get to the point. I asked you to be technical and address why you think that this demo wrongly suggests that CO2 absorbs heat. You already have suggested by past comments that you think CO2 blocks out sun radiation and would lead to cooling effect. You claim you got a themo-something or other degree at some education of higher learning. Please, let's get technical so that we can explore the depth of that knowledge imparted to you. Stop running away. I want to see some math.
@hozelda The point is you are myopic. No one cares about localized heating characteristics of C02 that is like saying, you care about the localized heating effect of copper wires inside your air conditioning. The neat effect is you are cooling your room. You have understand the system and how everything works together to produce the end result everything must be accounted for to understand what is really happening. Localized heating may result in global cooling or equilibrium.
You believe more clouds will be generated from this localized warming effect and lead to net cooling by reflecting extra sun radiation (as well as having most of the local warming be neutralized by evaporation).
Of course, you have no math to back this up. but you believe it in your heart that these effects will overcome any warming effects.
You have no math or model or equations, but you really believe this and we are naive if we don't agree.
@hozelda What is this nonsense you are spewing about believing in your heart of hearts? You some sort of religious zealot, you certainly talk and refuse to believe in science like one. The world evolved life from an atmosphere devoid of oxygen and CO2 levels 40 times what it is today on its own. You are thinking an acting like the world was created like a car to run perfectly at our current co2 level and that the world would break down if the co2 levels changed.
@Navila1 You appear to be stalling. A number of your claims contradict accepted science, yet you refuse to provide mathematical backup. I am asking for science, yet you appear to want to use religion.
I am glad you want us to return to the environment on earth that existed before mankind existed. I am sure we and the many species we rely on for life and comfort will be perfectly suited for survival there. [That was sarcasm.]
@hozelda Evolution does not contradict science at all only you do. We live in a living breathing planet which has evolved for an extremely higher level of co2 in the atmosphere to what we have today. Numb skulls like you don't understand or simple deny the truth and history of evolution and biological responses which drive and maintain points of equilibrium. Meaning in plainly for you non-scientific minds, biological response are more than capable of handling perturbations in co2.
@Navila1 Why do you continue to stall? Since when are biological responses to CO2 a topic in your university major in thermo-whatever? .. but while on the topic of biological responses, I don't think very many rational biologists would claim that any species is guaranteed to survive any particular change in environment. We've even seen many species apparently disappear during the past century, so obviously evolution is at least somewhat complex.
@hozelda The only thing stalling is your mind. You need to get up to speed. Actually you probable need about 8 years of studying in college before you would be up to speed. I can't make up for your lack of education. Secondly, i ran across some of you other post. Where you were being called out for not understanding or having any clue what heat transfer by radiation is at all. Why do you even bother pretending to know anything when everywhere you go are easily recognized as ignorant.
@Navila1 You've shown a remarkable ability to make statements that contradict accepted science then claim you have a university degree in thermodynamics (or something like that) while completely avoiding any real effort to substantiate any of your claims in any way (ie, provide any evidence or show you understand very much of the climate physics or how thermo allegedly backs you claims). You have also proven adept at mock/insult and misrepresenting those disagreeing with you.
@hozelda No, really. What motivates a person like you who doesn't even know high school level science to even pretend to understand the issue. I am not the only person telling you this. I ran across some other thread where some other guy pointed out the same thing, you have no clue what radiation is at all. The fact is you can't tell science from junk science because you have no education and you keep getting exposed.
@Navila1 You keep avoiding the subject. Stop inventing stuff and address the topic here. You don't know who I am using this account right now or what else I have ever posted. You make claims that defy accepted science and you refuse to back it up. Instead you have not stopped trying to insult me with make-believe theories you hold.
If you can't address the topic, just say so. Accepted science doesn't have to prove anything to you. If you want to make new claims, the burden of proof is on you.
@hozelda Buddy, denial is getting you no where. You assertions are as lacking as your education as been shown by multiple posters. Why do you even bother? You don't even know what science is child, you being fooled by commercial motivated junk science pushed by lobbyist and politicians doesn't make is "accepted" it just makes you a sucker to corporations who are preying on your ignorance to make money. You are Al Gore's patsy, nothing more.
@Navila1 You have not posted an ounce of sensible thermodynamics or validation to any of your claims deviating from accepted science.
I wouldn't put it past you to fake comments out there under this username, yet I note you have yet to provide a link to any such discussions you claim I have had (which would be irrelevant to this conversation here).
A sensible conclusion would be that you are full of bs and have little intention except to fool others who might glance at these comments.
@hozelda ?!?! Now you are claiming all your ignorant and asinine comments revealing your stupidity was me hacking you account??? Get a grip reality. Those comments on your account were written by you, if do not realize this.. go see a shrink nutter.
@Navila1 Yet another comment from you and not one peep of science or math to defend your outrageous claims about CO2 that go against well founded science or to even demonstrate you have a clue about thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. And what comments are you taking about that I supposedly wrote out there on the Internet?
@hozelda I have already done plenty along with other posters who have shown you repeatedly also on other forms, but of course an uneducated mind is incapable of recognizing what it know nothing about. Whats even more laughable when pathetically try to get your understanding of radiation of Wikipedia... and you get laughed at for not even being knowledgeable enough to know what to look up and you looking up a completely unrelated model. You are beyond help and reason. Lost cause.
@Navila1 I should know better than to expect to be able to have a serious conversation on youtube. You are right; I am a lost cause. Enjoy yourself. Later.
@hozelda You should have realized and accepted your limitations sooner. You attempted to talk about a subject well beyond your level of education which is plain foolish. The system involved in determining the earths temperature is extremely complex an entire book could not describe it with complete accuracy. If you understood how systems worked you would realize any single part's (like co2) results are meaningless without context of knowing the entire rest of the system.
Lots of denialists here yelling about how global warming is a scam and this experiment is nonsense. It's not nonsense: it's a good experiment showing that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation (IR). (That's a consequence of CO2's bond vibrations and symmetry properties.) Atmospheric CO2 thus acts effectively like a blanket; it re-radiates this heat, but not into space where it came from. It radiates it in all directions, including back towards Earth, which is why the planet's temperature rises.
Pure CO2 man ... try this experiment doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, from 390 ppm to ~ 800ppm to see the results :) ... Guarantee there will be significant., basically will see no change = Global Warming = the biggest hoax pulled on the international community in all of history.
@byrev Global warming isn't just a hoax it is an out right scam. Companies that will make large profits pay large amounts of money to Lobbyist and unethical "scientists" who construct experiments that do not accurately reflect what actually exists in our world. Even if you aren't schooled enough in thermal to see though clear lies, follow the money trail.
@Navila1 You keep talking about schooling in thermal, but you appear not to be schooled in quantum mechanics and other physics. And I suspect your thermal schooling is not even that accurate IF you think CO2 doesn't contribute to heating the planet.
What physics are you using to claim CO2 should cool the planet? I've taken my share of course, invoke equations all you want.
Yes but the CO2 was higher in more recent times; 1830 = 450ppm, 1860 = 390 ppm, 1940 = 410 ppm. It's concentration depends on many factors thankfully over which man has no control. The long term trend is actually downwards as is the trend for Oxygen.
Global warming is an issue because we are releasing CO2 in very large net quantities without balancing with a cycle (the gross CO2 release is only about 3% of total releases yearly).
We are releasing fossil fuel. This is CO2 from dinosaur age, a time when the earth was hotter. Hot earth and oceans will really change our environment and flood many coastal areas. Diseases will flourish in much larger amounts. The very fast changes will shock current crops, human population, and many species.
@hozelda Please stop calling this an 'experiment.' It is a demonstration meant to mislead people. Here are some of the parameters of the exhibit. [(ht tp: //ww w. creative-science. org. uk/hollywood15. ht ml) note gaps]
This stunt was pulled because the public is familiar with thermal imaging and would assume that the false-color image represents the CO2 blocking the majority of the ir radiation Which it doesn't.
There are so many levels of deceit that it's mind-numbing.
@fascistcat The demonstration shows that CO2 blocks heat. Yes, it misleads in that clearly nowhere near all of the radiation of the candle is blocked. I will agree with you.
I looked at that page you mentioned. One important thing to keep in mind is that in the Earth system the temperatures are much lower than candle fire. The earth radiation wavelengths are mostly in the 7-25 range, not the 1-5 range of the camera (which was chosen to address the candle fire radiation). CO2 blocks well 12-18.
@fascistcat Another important point to keep in mind is that many of the photons from the candle might go through a one meter tube without being absorbed. In the atmosphere we have many kilometers of CO2, which makes it much more difficult for a photon in the CO2 absorption band range to make it out without being absorbed.
@hozelda You seem motivated by science rather than politics, based on your comments on this video. The demonstration is clearly an attempt to mislead viewers, and your acknowledgement that this "MAY" (read- "IS") the intention of the parties involved implies that you can think objectively.
I'd be interested in delving into the theoretical if we can agree that this 'demonstration' is bunk.
There are a number of false premises in your pro-AGW arguments.
@fascistcat This demo claims that CO2 absorbs heat and ultimately works in the atmosphere along the lines of the greenhouse effect.
Note, a greenhouse stays at an elevated temp because the means to quickly equilibrate temperature with the colder environment is blocked off with physical boundaries that don't allow conduction or convection to work quickly. At the same time, materials (like common see through glass) are used to allow high energy radiation in but block large amounts of IR out.
@fascistcat As you pointed out, and as I agreed, the experiment above is a bit of a hack in that, while it correctly suggests CO2 absorbs heat, the experiment was contrived to show this result. Ie, the result is accurate in its key point, but the parameters are bogus. The CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, does not absorb all the IR energy and computers were definitely used to achieve this effect given that the candle doesn't even radiate as most of the planet does.
@fascistcat However, on the real planet, as I mentioned already, the range of radiation frequencies that are absorvable by CO2 and which are released by the Earth in large quantities do overlap to a fair degree. Where CO2 doesn't cut it, water and other greenhouse gases cover further, but the extra CO2 has an extra gh effect enabling higher temps, which means the air holds even more water (a ghc).
@fascistcat There is not a single contrarian model that does a better job of explaining the observed global warming of the past 50 years than does the CO2 models. While the models don't do a perfect job and while it is difficult to improve them fast because we have so few ways to check them (they have a resolution of about 30 years), the models are based on powerful weather forecasting models and give results that come close to historical values over the years.
@fascistcat I am not a climatologist and don't even practice science professionally, but I can follow arguments and have not come across anything that does a better job than the accepted explanations, generally.
Before you fire off, you may want to limit discussion to what skepticalscience the website doesn't already cover in their arguments section.
May I also recommend bbickmore wordpress website (utah). He has some recent presentations that might be useful.
@hozelda I checked out the 'skepticalscience' site and found it unremarkable. I've grown tired of the theoretical mathematicians bastardizing all of the non-applied sciences. I want to see laboratory experiments instead of computer models.
I am no longer convinced that the so-called 'greenhouse effect' even exists. The more I look into it, the more absurd it becomes.
@fascistcat google g6 climateclash and read the piece by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. It's supposed to be a not too technical description of some of the radiation activity that scientists have accepted takes place in our atmosphere. It's not too complex if you have some science background as I believe you do.
Can you tell me what part of the greenhouse effect and what part of skepticalscience website you saw and did not think was accurate?
@fascistcat I sure hope you don't expect to try and predict (within error bounds) the global average surface temperature of the earth say 100 years into the future by not using computers to solve the time-dependent partial differential equations that define the physical relationships. Many experiments have been carried out and scientists have gained confidence in certain math and physics modelling. From those models they try to make new predictions.
@hozelda As I mentioned, I am now a 'Greenhouse Effect' denier, or at least 'skeptic.' This puts me one level below a GW-denier and two steps from an AGW-denier. Until I have the time for some experiments that I'm contemplating, I'll bow out if discussing my reasoning.
On the bigger issue, the theoreticians have proven themselves untrustworthy and their conspiratorial behavior is Legion. Note the lack of any debate over applied-sciences vs. the Gov't funded theories.
@fascistcat Good luck with your experiments. You may want to try radiation experiments afterward to see if you can come up with MRI [that was a joke].
If you get a chance post back here a link to your write-up of the experiment and conclusions when you get it done.
@hozelda That statement is 100 percent bullshit only a person who doesn't know math or physics would say that. That is what happens when a uneducated phony tries to pretend to know stuff, he isn't even educated enough to fake it. To determine the general solution to the physical relationship you must be able to represent the relationship in a continuum this can not be done with our atmosphere so such solutions are not possible. Approximation methods must be used which are highly debatable.
@Navila1 What are you talking about? Every use of mathematics to a real world problem is modeling and approximations. The planet surface is partitioned into a number of sections and each section is solved in approximate fashion with some sections using different techniques than others. How do you think weather forecasting is done?
@fascistcat The fact is, our atmosphere is impossible to model using exact mathematics because of the amorphous nature of clouds prevents it. Those results must be approximated using empirical methods which can vary greatly and are easy to fudge for anyone who wants to choose an outcome for their model. Climate science guys jobs depend on existence of Global warming, their job security depends on having results that show warming- not the truth.
@Navila1 BTW, I agree that models can be fudged. So what are you doing about it besides trying foolishly to pretend (are you pretending?) that the greenhouse effect is not real and carbon dioxide does not contribute to warming our atmosphere? If you know what you were talking about, you would be there looking over lines of Fortran code to see where the climate models fail.
I'm still waiting for you to turn your talking nonsense into actual math.
@hozelda I would be shocked if they were using fortran so out dated. Yes, i would be interested in seeing what assumptions were made in the use of such modeling if it even exists and were open to the public. Though no comprehensive model even exists looking at the beginning patchwork would still be interesting though far from anything conclusive.
@Navila1 Google model e. You should be able to find a source code download for a model used by giss. I took a look some weeks back and it was laden with Fortran. There is no problem using Fortran. Fortran was designed for this kind of programming. Newer models might use something else, I don't know.
I hope to see a fork of this source base that is maintained in a fashion more amenable to contributions from the public.
@Navila1 I concur. These non-applied sciences are dependent on government funding and studies (Pew et al.) show that these fields are overrun with Leftist hacks.
There are no heavier-than-air flight deniers, even though it's crazy that a 200 ton plane can get off the ground. It's counter-intuitive, but we see millions of successful demonstrations annually. Not just models and appeals to authority, but verifiable testing.
This experiment is not meant to be a clone of the earth's atmosphere. It is only to demonstrate that absorption by CO2 of some heat radiation does take place.
By absorbing and emitting this heat, the CO2 serves just like a thick fog that blurs "light" behind it. Turn the CO2 knob to increase the "IR" fog intensity. This is why the IR view of the candle disappears at high CO2 levels.
On earth, the CO2 (H2O also) warms atmosphere, with some of this heat going as radiation back to earth surface.
The sun is much hotter than the candle and emits radiation that mostly has a higher frequency. This radiation is not absorbed by CO2 gas, but passes through it. It is absorbed, however, by complex molecules (eg, the earth and most solids). The complex molecules on the earth's surface radiate so that the CO2 does capture it and trap it a bit near the earth.
The candle here emits radiation that does not get caught in the CO2 (eg, the visible candle light)., but the IR camera only shows IR range.
There is plenty of misunderstanding here about how the erroneously titled ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is supposed to work. The factual explanation is on Wikipedia under “Electromagnetic absorption by water”. It is a requirement that both water vapour and Carbon dioxide need to be present.
Energy from the sun (higher frequency photons mostly) largely passes through the atmosphere and hits the earth to heat it. The greenhouse gases then increase this temperature further because the earth radiates at frequencies that are absorbed by the greenhouse gasses.
@malshy .. I should have added.. the absorption from the ghg then becomes an emission at some related frequency and in a random direction. Near the ground, many of these random emissions from ghg manage to hit the earth to add to the constant flow of energy the earth is already receiving from the sun. This extra energy coming at the earth raises temp.
Energy comes in from sun to earth at high freq, goes back out at low freq, but some of this low freq is caught by ghg and bounced back to earth.
Strong absorbance by water vapor occurs at wavelengths around 2900, 1950 and 1450 nanometers.
Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nanometers.
Theoretically a mixture of the two gases could cut off the passage of IR and thus the Earth might warm substantially. The whole scenario was thought up by Al Gore and Ken Lay. Google “Enron: The Godfather of Kyoto” for the full story.
What this experiment demonstrates; In an atmosphere of CO2 little heat would reach the Earth directly but the atmosphere would warm to some small extent.
If Infra Red light is shone through vapour free air the IR would not be unaffected because N2, O2 and Ar all have absorption bands. The addition of water vapour reduces the IR significantly and a 50:50 mix of CO2 and H2O (no air present) reduces it by around as much again.
In the atmosphere the effect of additional CO2 must be to cool the Earth. There may be some small warming of the atmosphere which has a very effective cooling mechanism – mainly by huge convection currents, and precipitation.
So therefore these vapours and gasses reduce the passage of IR and act in a similar way to that of sunglasses to light.
Conversely at night – the air temperature really plummets (in the deserts anyway) the additional 60ppm of CO2 for which man is probably not responsible aids in an infinitesimal way to keep us warm at night.
If CO2 cuts out yellow then why do we get yellow light from the sun? According to this experiment CO2 in the atmosphere should cool the Earth and not warm it.
@malshy You are looking at the output of a camera that can process the input into any color it wants. "Yellow" is not an issue here. The screen only shows a section of infrared radiation, unlike the camera filming the guy, which shows visible light waves.
This experiment shows that the CO2 reradiates certain infrared radiation coming from the candle. It's a fog effect but for infrared rather than for visible light. You don't see distinct elements in fog because of reradiation in all directions.
@malshy ..also note that the sun hits the earth largely with radiation at a different (and higher) frequency than body heat infrared (which is what CO2 captures well). This passes straight through the CO2 on the way down. On the way up, the earth converts that captured energy into the lower frequencies, which are then "trapped" to a fair degree by the CO2, water, etc. Global warming is an issue today because we are releasing (net) CO2 in very large quantities without a counterbalancing cycle.
Why didn't the ir camera pick up his body heat? How could the CO2 block every wavelength of ir radiation coming from the flame?
Either the camera or the computer is 'enhancing' the experiment. Otherwise, I could fill a trash bag with CO2, put it on my head and sneak into Ft. Knox.
@fascistcat the guards at fort knox don't have infrared eyes. They'll see you alright. And yes the computer is enhancing this effect. Night vision goggles enhance or you wouldn't be able to see people clearly since even at night everything radiates infrared (most things radiate near the ambient temperature). His body heat is obviously part of what the computer is designed to block out when it was calibrated.
@hozelda I was being sardonic with the Ft Knox bit, but was dead serious about these fraudulent 'experiments' being put out to mislead the young or ill-informed.
It is patently obvious that CO2 doesn't block radiation outside of of a couple narrow bands and that within these narrow radiation bands the IR light would be blocked by ambient atmosphere over just a couple dozen yards.
I want disclosure on the camera, filters, software, hardware and chamber construction materials.
@fascistcat I agree that this could be a hoax. In fact, maybe the candle was there on the screen but the video was pixel modified. Clearly, if you want to believe something, you should set up the experiment yourself and perform it yourself. Come up with a hypothesis and then test it yourself. That is what Richard Muller did recently to address the question of biased and flawed global climate data. He was expecting his analysis to get the opposite result. He didn't trust climate scientists.
@fascistcat I have no idea where you stand on global warming, co2, man being a problem, etc. You may want to hop over to bbickmore 's website. Right now he has a couple of recent presentations on his blog you may find interesting. skepticalscience also has an argument's section that addresses a bunch of myths against global warming. You'll find many online detractors with complaints but not a single model/explanation that does a fair job of explaining average global temps past and present.
@fascistcat Actually, his body heat is likely not picked up despite the calibration being able to pick it up (is my guess). Apparently the bit of CO2 in the pipe initially is enough to obscure his low body radiation but not the high candle radiation. You have to add even more CO2 to blurry out the candle. If you have something that burns even hotter than that candle, it might still show up somewhat but can then be fogged out by adding yet more CO2.
neat, so the guy is saving the sunlight heat is being absorbed by our co2 atmosphere. So our suns light is not being able to heat our earth as effectively because like the small sun the candle the heat is being absorbed by the co2 before it can reach the earth and heat us. Sound more like an argument for co2 causing global cooling. Thought, i don't believe it that either.
@Navila1 Dunno if you're genuine or trolling, but you've got it backwards. In this experiment the candle represents the heat radiated by the Earth when warmed by the Sun. The camera is like a satellite in space measuring infra-red radiation (heat) emitted to space. The tube with CO2 is the Earth's atmosphere. So as CO2 rises in the atmosphere, less heat is emitted to space.
@jondoig Are you really that stupid? You think earth is more like fire? Than fire is to fire? You are a sucker. .. The point is only a stupid fuck wouldn't see how false and nonsensical the assumptions are compared to real life.
@Navila1 The sun emits mostly high energy (high frequency) "light". Our planet is full of complex molecules and captures nearly all of it. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot capture but a small part of that downward radiation from the sun. Then the "magic" happens. The earth reradiates that energy upwards but at a lower frequency. That frequency range does get mopped up a lot by CO2, water vapor, and some other gases. That's the atmosphere effect, but we are adding unchecked CO2 at a fast rate.
@hozelda No cares about your ideas about magic. However, the video clearly shows how sunlight aka the candles light is absorbed by the atmosphere before it hits earth.
@Navila1 study up. The instructional presentation to show an effect is not designed to mimic the earth system. As fascistcat pointed out, this video is not representative of what would happen to candle heat. The video shows an effect related to what happens to planetary heat, which is at much lower temperatures. CO2 stops very little high frequency photon sun energy on the way down but stops a fair amount of lower freq earth radiation on way up. "Wrong frequency" photons are invisible to CO2.
@hozelda This video is from a BBC series called Earth: The Climate Wars. It was certainly meant to demonstrate 'Greenhouse Effect' which was supposed to block out 100% of IR.
There is a window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.and allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be radiated out to space, keeping the Earth's atmosphere from going into thermal runaway.
@hozelda Sorry, child. Your the one that should try going to school. The point is the conclusions that are tried to pull out experiment is Total BS and is laughable to a person like me who actually does a degree in thermal dynamics. Your miss understanding and miss use of the concepts of heat and temperature in previous sentence show me that you don't even have an introductory level of thermal.
@Navila1 From the page that fasisctcat provided: "In The Climate Wars [1] (BBC1) the presenter, Iain Stewart, demonstrated that CO2 absorbs Infrared (IR) energy and so showed how it can trap heat in the Earths atmosphere contributing to the so called 'green house effect' [2]."
Does or does not this demo/experiment suggest that CO2 can "trap heat"? This is not a formal experiment of discovery. Audience is young students. Language ("heat") is not formal. I'm not sure you really understand this.
@hozelda Yes, this is call pseudo-science and i find it appalling to watch. Young naive kids and uneducated adults are being mislead. Put scientist in the room are even an undergrad that degree in a field that deal with thermal dynamics and "experiment" would be shredded to pieces before it even started. The "demonstration" does not reflect what we see in the real world. That is exactly why they choose the young and naive as there audience because educated people would not listen.
Ice cores show a trend over 400,000 years that appears to be cyclical, much more reliable than "cherry picked" data with only 40 years of history.
The liberals have lost the global warming debate because too many informed Americans are not buying the liberal bias on this topic. Americans know that it is only a ruse for a political power grab.
"BOGUS experiment" ? What's boring is the denier's formula of branding every experiment, or research into why earth's atmospheric and sea surface temperature is rising as "Bogus". So let's just continue to drive on like we have been doing... -there's plenty of oil and coal to burn, so I guess we'll just find out the hard way who's right and who's wrong.
Yes, CO2 is one of the gases that absorbs infrared, but it does not mean it is the driver for "global" warming. Furthermore, there are naturally occurring materials such as clouds that reflect infrared in addition to the plants, trees and vegetation that converts it. Total solar irradiance better explains the Keeling Curve than CO2. The misnomer is "global" warming and "global" climate science.
@Teknokossack - Plants, Trees and Vegetation process CO2 and remove CO2 from the atmosphere - thus allowing heat to escape from the earth. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster plants, trees and vegetation grow. The earth is a dynamic environment which has been adapting to challenges for billions of years.
You are the one who should pay more attention to your freshman year high school courses.
@AndrianGA Then how can you explain the Vostok Ice Core Data?
For argument's sake, planting more trees on a mass scale is far more acceptable than allowing the government to use this as a way to control the means of production.
Can you explain why leftist politicians want to control the means of production through Cap and Trade?
@AndrianGA Ice cores show a trend over 400,000 years that appears to be cyclical, gives a larger historical perspective, and is much more reliable than "cherry picked" data with only 40 years of history.
I once considered myself an environmentalist until I discovered that the movement was hijacked by leftists and I was lied to by faulty science. The liberals have lost the global warming debate and have set back the environmental movement for a generation.
As you can see one the picture I showed you, the CO2 concentration right now is twice as much as it ever was in the past 400,000 years, the cycles you see are due to ice ages.
Because of the Vostok Ice cores we know that CO2 concentration right now is double of that of 650,000 years ago. To put that in perspective, it's 7 ice ages ago.
@AndrianGA What picture? Regardless, it still doesn't prove global warming and the liberals lost the global warming debate in this country.
They used the environmental movement as an excuse to grab political power through "Cap & Trade" and control the means of production and lost credibility. Sadly, their political scheme has set the legitimate environmental movement back a generation.
Why not simply have class action lawsuits against polluters like Minnesota vs 3M?
I can't paste links here, but do me a favor, go to wikipedia, in the search bar type in "Atmospheric concentrations of CO2" scroll down to "Past variations", right there you will see the data you're talking about which obviously you've never seen. Please note the current CO2 concentration at time 0 zero.
Where are the trees, foliage, and vegetation in this experiment?
They "conveniently" don't include this because the earth adapts to additional CO2 in the atmosphere by vegetation processing CO2 quicker, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and thus allowing heat to escape!
@FidelityRealEstate ......the purpose of the experiment is to show that C02 indeed traps heat. Pay more attention if you want to be known as a skeptic, rather than a denier.
@Teknokossack 1st thing ... drop the "denier" crap. It's boring! Next, what was the proportion of CO2 in that tube? I suspect it was somewhere north of 50%. Do you know how much CO2 is in our atmosphere? It is about 390 ppm ... that's PARTS PER MILLION! This was a BOGUS experiment.
The carbon dioxide isn't putting the candle out, and it's not supposed to represent Earth. This experiment is showing that carbon dioxide is trapping the candle's heat, which prevents it from reaching the camera.
This is a totally flawed experiment if trying to prove that climate change is due to rising CO2 levels. Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 0.038%. The experiment raises this towards 100% to prove the point! This is bad science. The experiment should show at what concentration of CO2 it starts to make a difference.
The problems with this video, it's flaws, are that whilst it shows a correct example of what happens with a candle when held against a closed tube filled with CO2 it then incorrectly draws a comparison between that and the Earth. The two reasons this is flawed is because, 1) the environment of that tube is mostly static; the Earth is far more dynamic, and most importantly, 2) the tube is a mostly closed system; the Earth is an open one. It's good science poorly paired to make a bad comparison.
All that matters is the amount of energy coming into the system and the amount of energy going out. The inner dynamics are irrelevant to the energy balance. The earth's atmosphere is a closed system insofar as gravity keeps the gas molecules within a boundary just as the cylinder walls do for the experiment shown. Both systems allow radiation to escape through the walls. The atmosphere would be better represented by a series of cylinders end to end with decreasing gas pressure.
"The earth's atmosphere is a closed system...Both systems allow radiation to escape through the walls."
Hence, not a closed system.
"The atmosphere would be better represented by a series of cylinders end to end with decreasing gas pressure."
The point of this video was simply to show the (heat) energy absorption power of CO2, which is good to illustrate, but I wouldn't draw any direct conclusions beyond that.
@RandomConcepts Good point, I think the stumbling drunk science of global warming is in serious need of an intervention by rest of the scientific family.
@feelzthelove trick camera techniques? wtf? if you want to doubt the extrapolation made to he earth that is one thing, but don't make up stuff about trick cameras.
@djaxefield We add CO2 and we cut down trees and destroy all sorts of things that absorb CO2 that is not a problem? Our burning of fossil fuels generates a lot of CO2 as well as heat, put the two together how lovely. Still don't believe me? Go into your garage check the temperature, then turn on your car and leave it on for 20 minutes with every door closed in the garage. When you come back check the temoerature again oh and try breathing :)
If we didn't have CO2 in the atmosphere we would all burn alive! This whole mandmade global warming is one giant con. Man makes less than 1% of CO2 that enters the atmosphere. History of high and low CO2 does not match temperature changes. Temperatues do have an exact match with activity on the sun. And that is what's going on, we have no influence.
A lot of you have some misconceptions about how infrared spectroscopy works. See this link to help you get a better understanding of how it all works:
If CO2 absorbs the IR that means atmosphere would heat up but that also means sea surface temperature would drop as less IR would reach the sea surface.
But we do not see sea surface temperature drop, i.e. FAIL!!!!
@Greeniemaxx your first proposition is wrong, therefore your conclusion is moot. The ocean's energy absorption is increasing, and we have measured it. See "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications". The temperature in land, ocean and troposphere (the latter has more uncertainty) is rising as predicted. The stratosphere is cooling as predicted. Scientists already predicted by how much according to the GHG and nailed the results.
The concentration of gas in that tube is ridiculous compared to the 0.038% in our atmosphere. The fact is temperature drives CO2 not the other way round. The CO2 concentration only changed its trend roughly 800 years after temperature had done the same thing. There have been many papers that showed this fact. For example, a paper by Lowell Stott et al. in Science (2007) showed that 19,000 ago, when the last ice age started to go away, CO2 lagged by about 1,000 years, too.
Of course the gas is more concentrated in the tube, but the atmosphere is much longer. Say the tube is 100% CO2 and and half a metre long, this gives 1/2 metre of CO2. 3/4 of the atmosphere is within 11km, so we may say that 0.039% is spread over 8.25km, if we assume that the atmosphere drops of linearly. 8250m * 0.039% gives 3.22m of pure CO2. More than is in the cylinder!
True in much of the historic record CO2 has risen in a response to raising temperatures. What does this mean? In the past orbital and other effects have influenced the climate and increased temperature. The Earth as a whole responds by releasing CO2 from the ocean, soil and biosphere, hence the lag.
However this does not mean that CO2 does not cause warming. It means if we add CO2, then the Earth will add more too as the temp warms. Double whammy.
@MightyDrunken I'm not sure I really care anymore, there is a lot more bad stuff going on in the world. I truly believe climate change is compleatly natural. The engineered credit crunch, 9/11, war on terror, swine flu, the coming cashless society & pretend man made climate change is all part of a much bigger agenda for world domination by the private banks, you may think I'm compleatly nuts but everything I have been talking about for years is all coming true.Its all part of the new world order
@giptonsilly Seems to me if we end up with a cashless society it would be the best thing for the human race, it really would not matter who ruled.
Cash + No robots = slavery
No cash + Robots = freedom
A new world order is Inevitable, not to mention needed. We have the tech and ability to make a world that is truly good for the first time in human history. Call me a optimistic fool but it seems like undeniable logic to me, its the transition that's going to suck Balls lol.
@AzraelofLegion Fuck that I was born free and I will die free, a cashless society would be the worst thing for everybody. We might as well all become communists. You might think a new world order is needed but I tell you something I will try my hardest to fuck the new world order and If I die trying so be it, I don't want to live in a shitty world controlled by a few rich wankers and I don't want that happening to my kids. FUCK THE NEW WORLD ORDER
@giptonsilly And that's why it's being done in secret. Everyone has this same fear for good reason (due to the past). This is why horrific things are going to happen, people have to suffer before they will open there eye's. There is no longer a need for humans to work jobs due to our tech level, no jobs means no purchasing power and no purchasing power means no economy.This is the future of our current system. Things will change rather we agree with it or not
Could you please make a video demonstrating the different camera projections without CO2, and with a CO2 concentration of 0.389ppm? Wouldn't that more clearly display the current effect of the man made CO2 in our atmosphere?
But, the difference in images won't be noticeable, you say? Hmmmm, exactly!
I just wish I understood why there are so many people presenting fake science to prove their point about the effects of CO2 on our global temperature.
Before making ignorant comments, either do the experiment with a research grade spectrometer or check the scientific literature for the results of someone that has. Look in the HITRAN spectral database, for example. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 389 ppm, but 0.389 ppm is easily measured.
@pikesplitman oops, my mistake. I meant to say make a video where CO2 is 0.039% of gas within the tube.
Just like the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Of course that is all CO2, both naturally occurring and man-made in our atmosphere, not just man-made.
So, go on then. Let's see you make such a video. It would be a LOT more valid than just letting the CO2 flow until something happens. heck, water vapor would have a noticeable effect too! LOL
Dear Dr. This is not heat trapping, you have just demonstrated the low thermal conductivity of CO2 (relative to air): of course the flame disappears. You would have had better luck using methane gas - that would have got the desired glow - lol!
Scientist's like yourself are the only things in this universe that have found a use for your so called heat trapping abilities of CO2 and it comes in the form of this trickery / junk documentary. Nothing else has a heat related probem with it.
Conductivity is a mass transport phenomenon. The IR camera is measuring photons moving through the gas, not molecular motion. The image is extinguished due to absorption of photons. By the way, the rate of heat transfer via conduction is related to the mean molecular speed. The ratio between N2 and CO2 is sqrt(28/44) =0.80, which would not explain the disappearance of the image.
Adding any type air molecules to the tube without subtracking any causes less infared to go through it because it's harder for the photons to go through is if they keep bumping into air molecules.
How many PPM was the CO2 in the container? My question is important since the video suggests the concentration in our atmosphere is going to get to some absurd level vastly higher than it is now and at a rate vastly faster than it has been over the last several decades.
@00dfm00 What difference does it make? The point of video is not to suggest what the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would become, the point of the video is to demonstrate that the people claiming CO2 is not a greenhouse gas are mistaken. CO2 absorbs heat. Assertion made, point proven.
@PlasteredDragon No, that wasn't the point of the video. Who the hell claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? All the skeptics think it is. The debate is on how big of a role it plays relative to other greenhouse gassed and how much mankind is contributing to it. This video does nothing address those issues and creates a false analogy.
@00dfm00 The falsities you will find are extremely prolific.
CO2 is a non-issue but its deployment for the planned new economics is still underway. Thus the lie is being maintained, but it will fall away, just as all the other deceptions.
@00dfm00 Yes it WAS the point of the video, and I've heard countless skeptics indeed say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all. If you haven't heard the "plant food" mantra, you haven't been listening. The point of this video: does CO2 absorb heat? Yes. End of point. The role of CO2 versus other greenhouse gases is not the subject of this video. There are some great videos on how CO2 compares to say, water vapor--but that's not the issue this particular clip is tackling.
@PlasteredDragon Since there are countless skeptics, please name a few that have appeared in the magazines, newspapers, etc, that state CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Should be easy, given your glowing confidence. (And youtubers don't count.) And co2scienceDOTorg has a vast database on all sorts of edible plants that do great with more CO2. Just because soy or wheat could care less, doesn't mean a lot of others don't benefit.
@00dfm00 Oh suddenly YouTubers don't count? And what are you then? AFA the plant issue goes, no duh. I wasn't disputing that, I was just pointing out that's the mantra from many skeptics. "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it's plant food." Actual scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change don't say such nonsense, but we weren't talking about them until you moved the goalposts just now. Google: CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. 2.6 million hits. You're right, nobody says this. LOL
@PlasteredDragon My assumption was that we were talking about experts in the field. That's why I said not to include YouTuber skeptics since then we would have to include the YouTube Chicken Littles that think global warming is going to be so bad that only mountain tops will be habitable.
It is so dissappointing to find the number of people blinded by rhetoric & convoluted algorithms. CO2 is but one aspect of the way Carbon moves through the living on this little sphere. As such, by design, it is incapable of influencing climate & its abundance in the troposphere, varying as it does with altitude is concentrated at lower levels, where it is carried down again by water.
@PlasteredDragon The claim that CO2 is a warming gas should be challenged.
Given its concentration and physical characteristics, its cycle through the living & unliving and most importantly, its increased abundance during warmer (higher biogenic productivity) periods tells us that during clement conditions, carbon (through the living) rises & grows (forests). The during coller times, it returns inward even to the deep.
This is not a good day for Anthropogenic Global Warming Fanatics. There is hardly a wind generator turning in England. We have record low temperatures and “The Global Warming Policy Foundation” is pushing its message home.
Google: The Global Warming Policy Foundation
malshy 2 weeks ago
See: Electromagnetic absorption by water on Wikipedia
"Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm"
malshy 1 month ago
The BBC explanation is wrong. Simply put;
CO2 helps to lower radiation from the Sun. Any heat taken up by the atmosphere is dissipated away into space via convection and radiation.
malshy 1 month ago
@malshy CO2 is not an aerosol so it does not 'lower radiation from the Sun' and heat can't be dissipated into space via convection. The atmosphere warms from the ground up. The black body curve for the Earth starts at about 4 microns while for the Sun it ends at 4 microns. This is the point at which shortwave radiation becomes longwave radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation dependent on their resonance frequencies. You are wrong.
WaxItYourself 1 month ago
CO2 cools the Earth. Period
Finally the scientific proof;
G. V. CHILINGAR, L. F. KHILYUK, and O. G. SOROKHTIN, 2008, Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission, Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1–9, 2008 ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online DOI: 10.1080/15567030701568727
malshy 1 month ago
@malshy /facepalm
Halcyon3k 1 month ago
@malshy
You said=======
Finally the scientific proof
========
LOL
So you made a decision, hoped that it's true, and "Finally" you have the evidence LOL
Do you know what following the evidence to wherever it leads, is?
Your understanding of science is "lead the evidence" not follow
lol
AndrianGA 3 weeks ago
This is a demonstration of physical fact: CO2 absorbing infrared light. Deciding what this means for the atmosphere takes more scrutiny, but this is a piece of the puzzle.
solmyrgarde 1 month ago
Wow, I'm looking at comments here. I thought malshy was rather uninformed. Can I say science retarded for many of them? Because honestly I feel that's the best description of them.
JustNCredible71 1 month ago
This video actually demonstrates that CO2 must aid the cooling of the Earth
Google:
Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth
malshy 1 month ago
@malshy You are so wrong. It doesn't demonstrate that at all. The sun radiates to the Earth in UV, the candle isn't radiating as the Sun would. CO2 traps IR radiation. Please learn a little before making such comments.
JustNCredible71 1 month ago
Sorry kid, you can't fool me for a second you are completely uneducated in thermodynamics, physics and critical thinking -it so flagrantly obvious. Let me try to explain this in a way even an uneducated mind like yourself can understand. Electricity running through a wire releases heat into its surrounding. Does that mean if i turn on my air conditioner i am heating up my room because the air condition have wires with electricity running through them? The answer is no.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 What is this I don't even.
perpiotrredman 3 months ago
@Navila1 Please get to the point. I asked you to be technical and address why you think that this demo wrongly suggests that CO2 absorbs heat. You already have suggested by past comments that you think CO2 blocks out sun radiation and would lead to cooling effect. You claim you got a themo-something or other degree at some education of higher learning. Please, let's get technical so that we can explore the depth of that knowledge imparted to you. Stop running away. I want to see some math.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda The point is you are myopic. No one cares about localized heating characteristics of C02 that is like saying, you care about the localized heating effect of copper wires inside your air conditioning. The neat effect is you are cooling your room. You have understand the system and how everything works together to produce the end result everything must be accounted for to understand what is really happening. Localized heating may result in global cooling or equilibrium.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 Let me guess.
You believe more clouds will be generated from this localized warming effect and lead to net cooling by reflecting extra sun radiation (as well as having most of the local warming be neutralized by evaporation).
Of course, you have no math to back this up. but you believe it in your heart that these effects will overcome any warming effects.
You have no math or model or equations, but you really believe this and we are naive if we don't agree.
Am I warm?
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda What is this nonsense you are spewing about believing in your heart of hearts? You some sort of religious zealot, you certainly talk and refuse to believe in science like one. The world evolved life from an atmosphere devoid of oxygen and CO2 levels 40 times what it is today on its own. You are thinking an acting like the world was created like a car to run perfectly at our current co2 level and that the world would break down if the co2 levels changed.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 You appear to be stalling. A number of your claims contradict accepted science, yet you refuse to provide mathematical backup. I am asking for science, yet you appear to want to use religion.
I am glad you want us to return to the environment on earth that existed before mankind existed. I am sure we and the many species we rely on for life and comfort will be perfectly suited for survival there. [That was sarcasm.]
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda Evolution does not contradict science at all only you do. We live in a living breathing planet which has evolved for an extremely higher level of co2 in the atmosphere to what we have today. Numb skulls like you don't understand or simple deny the truth and history of evolution and biological responses which drive and maintain points of equilibrium. Meaning in plainly for you non-scientific minds, biological response are more than capable of handling perturbations in co2.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 Why do you continue to stall? Since when are biological responses to CO2 a topic in your university major in thermo-whatever? .. but while on the topic of biological responses, I don't think very many rational biologists would claim that any species is guaranteed to survive any particular change in environment. We've even seen many species apparently disappear during the past century, so obviously evolution is at least somewhat complex.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda The only thing stalling is your mind. You need to get up to speed. Actually you probable need about 8 years of studying in college before you would be up to speed. I can't make up for your lack of education. Secondly, i ran across some of you other post. Where you were being called out for not understanding or having any clue what heat transfer by radiation is at all. Why do you even bother pretending to know anything when everywhere you go are easily recognized as ignorant.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 You've shown a remarkable ability to make statements that contradict accepted science then claim you have a university degree in thermodynamics (or something like that) while completely avoiding any real effort to substantiate any of your claims in any way (ie, provide any evidence or show you understand very much of the climate physics or how thermo allegedly backs you claims). You have also proven adept at mock/insult and misrepresenting those disagreeing with you.
Great job!
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda No, really. What motivates a person like you who doesn't even know high school level science to even pretend to understand the issue. I am not the only person telling you this. I ran across some other thread where some other guy pointed out the same thing, you have no clue what radiation is at all. The fact is you can't tell science from junk science because you have no education and you keep getting exposed.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 You keep avoiding the subject. Stop inventing stuff and address the topic here. You don't know who I am using this account right now or what else I have ever posted. You make claims that defy accepted science and you refuse to back it up. Instead you have not stopped trying to insult me with make-believe theories you hold.
If you can't address the topic, just say so. Accepted science doesn't have to prove anything to you. If you want to make new claims, the burden of proof is on you.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda Buddy, denial is getting you no where. You assertions are as lacking as your education as been shown by multiple posters. Why do you even bother? You don't even know what science is child, you being fooled by commercial motivated junk science pushed by lobbyist and politicians doesn't make is "accepted" it just makes you a sucker to corporations who are preying on your ignorance to make money. You are Al Gore's patsy, nothing more.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 You have not posted an ounce of sensible thermodynamics or validation to any of your claims deviating from accepted science.
I wouldn't put it past you to fake comments out there under this username, yet I note you have yet to provide a link to any such discussions you claim I have had (which would be irrelevant to this conversation here).
A sensible conclusion would be that you are full of bs and have little intention except to fool others who might glance at these comments.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda ?!?! Now you are claiming all your ignorant and asinine comments revealing your stupidity was me hacking you account??? Get a grip reality. Those comments on your account were written by you, if do not realize this.. go see a shrink nutter.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 Yet another comment from you and not one peep of science or math to defend your outrageous claims about CO2 that go against well founded science or to even demonstrate you have a clue about thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. And what comments are you taking about that I supposedly wrote out there on the Internet?
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda I have already done plenty along with other posters who have shown you repeatedly also on other forms, but of course an uneducated mind is incapable of recognizing what it know nothing about. Whats even more laughable when pathetically try to get your understanding of radiation of Wikipedia... and you get laughed at for not even being knowledgeable enough to know what to look up and you looking up a completely unrelated model. You are beyond help and reason. Lost cause.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 I should know better than to expect to be able to have a serious conversation on youtube. You are right; I am a lost cause. Enjoy yourself. Later.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda You should have realized and accepted your limitations sooner. You attempted to talk about a subject well beyond your level of education which is plain foolish. The system involved in determining the earths temperature is extremely complex an entire book could not describe it with complete accuracy. If you understood how systems worked you would realize any single part's (like co2) results are meaningless without context of knowing the entire rest of the system.
Navila1 2 months ago
Lots of denialists here yelling about how global warming is a scam and this experiment is nonsense. It's not nonsense: it's a good experiment showing that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation (IR). (That's a consequence of CO2's bond vibrations and symmetry properties.) Atmospheric CO2 thus acts effectively like a blanket; it re-radiates this heat, but not into space where it came from. It radiates it in all directions, including back towards Earth, which is why the planet's temperature rises.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
Pure CO2 man ... try this experiment doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, from 390 ppm to ~ 800ppm to see the results :) ... Guarantee there will be significant., basically will see no change = Global Warming = the biggest hoax pulled on the international community in all of history.
byrev 3 months ago
@byrev Global warming isn't just a hoax it is an out right scam. Companies that will make large profits pay large amounts of money to Lobbyist and unethical "scientists" who construct experiments that do not accurately reflect what actually exists in our world. Even if you aren't schooled enough in thermal to see though clear lies, follow the money trail.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 You keep talking about schooling in thermal, but you appear not to be schooled in quantum mechanics and other physics. And I suspect your thermal schooling is not even that accurate IF you think CO2 doesn't contribute to heating the planet.
What physics are you using to claim CO2 should cool the planet? I've taken my share of course, invoke equations all you want.
hozelda 3 months ago
Yes but the CO2 was higher in more recent times; 1830 = 450ppm, 1860 = 390 ppm, 1940 = 410 ppm. It's concentration depends on many factors thankfully over which man has no control. The long term trend is actually downwards as is the trend for Oxygen.
malshy 3 months ago
Global warming is an issue because we are releasing CO2 in very large net quantities without balancing with a cycle (the gross CO2 release is only about 3% of total releases yearly).
We are releasing fossil fuel. This is CO2 from dinosaur age, a time when the earth was hotter. Hot earth and oceans will really change our environment and flood many coastal areas. Diseases will flourish in much larger amounts. The very fast changes will shock current crops, human population, and many species.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda Please stop calling this an 'experiment.' It is a demonstration meant to mislead people. Here are some of the parameters of the exhibit. [(ht tp: //ww w. creative-science. org. uk/hollywood15. ht ml) note gaps]
This stunt was pulled because the public is familiar with thermal imaging and would assume that the false-color image represents the CO2 blocking the majority of the ir radiation Which it doesn't.
There are so many levels of deceit that it's mind-numbing.
fascistcat 3 months ago
@fascistcat The demonstration shows that CO2 blocks heat. Yes, it misleads in that clearly nowhere near all of the radiation of the candle is blocked. I will agree with you.
I looked at that page you mentioned. One important thing to keep in mind is that in the Earth system the temperatures are much lower than candle fire. The earth radiation wavelengths are mostly in the 7-25 range, not the 1-5 range of the camera (which was chosen to address the candle fire radiation). CO2 blocks well 12-18.
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat Another important point to keep in mind is that many of the photons from the candle might go through a one meter tube without being absorbed. In the atmosphere we have many kilometers of CO2, which makes it much more difficult for a photon in the CO2 absorption band range to make it out without being absorbed.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda You seem motivated by science rather than politics, based on your comments on this video. The demonstration is clearly an attempt to mislead viewers, and your acknowledgement that this "MAY" (read- "IS") the intention of the parties involved implies that you can think objectively.
I'd be interested in delving into the theoretical if we can agree that this 'demonstration' is bunk.
There are a number of false premises in your pro-AGW arguments.
fascistcat 3 months ago
@fascistcat This demo claims that CO2 absorbs heat and ultimately works in the atmosphere along the lines of the greenhouse effect.
Note, a greenhouse stays at an elevated temp because the means to quickly equilibrate temperature with the colder environment is blocked off with physical boundaries that don't allow conduction or convection to work quickly. At the same time, materials (like common see through glass) are used to allow high energy radiation in but block large amounts of IR out.
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat As you pointed out, and as I agreed, the experiment above is a bit of a hack in that, while it correctly suggests CO2 absorbs heat, the experiment was contrived to show this result. Ie, the result is accurate in its key point, but the parameters are bogus. The CO2 in the atmosphere, for example, does not absorb all the IR energy and computers were definitely used to achieve this effect given that the candle doesn't even radiate as most of the planet does.
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat However, on the real planet, as I mentioned already, the range of radiation frequencies that are absorvable by CO2 and which are released by the Earth in large quantities do overlap to a fair degree. Where CO2 doesn't cut it, water and other greenhouse gases cover further, but the extra CO2 has an extra gh effect enabling higher temps, which means the air holds even more water (a ghc).
A "greenhouse gas"
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat There is not a single contrarian model that does a better job of explaining the observed global warming of the past 50 years than does the CO2 models. While the models don't do a perfect job and while it is difficult to improve them fast because we have so few ways to check them (they have a resolution of about 30 years), the models are based on powerful weather forecasting models and give results that come close to historical values over the years.
No alt model does better.
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat I am not a climatologist and don't even practice science professionally, but I can follow arguments and have not come across anything that does a better job than the accepted explanations, generally.
Before you fire off, you may want to limit discussion to what skepticalscience the website doesn't already cover in their arguments section.
May I also recommend bbickmore wordpress website (utah). He has some recent presentations that might be useful.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda I checked out the 'skepticalscience' site and found it unremarkable. I've grown tired of the theoretical mathematicians bastardizing all of the non-applied sciences. I want to see laboratory experiments instead of computer models.
I am no longer convinced that the so-called 'greenhouse effect' even exists. The more I look into it, the more absurd it becomes.
fascistcat 2 months ago
@fascistcat google g6 climateclash and read the piece by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. It's supposed to be a not too technical description of some of the radiation activity that scientists have accepted takes place in our atmosphere. It's not too complex if you have some science background as I believe you do.
Can you tell me what part of the greenhouse effect and what part of skepticalscience website you saw and did not think was accurate?
hozelda 2 months ago
@fascistcat I sure hope you don't expect to try and predict (within error bounds) the global average surface temperature of the earth say 100 years into the future by not using computers to solve the time-dependent partial differential equations that define the physical relationships. Many experiments have been carried out and scientists have gained confidence in certain math and physics modelling. From those models they try to make new predictions.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda As I mentioned, I am now a 'Greenhouse Effect' denier, or at least 'skeptic.' This puts me one level below a GW-denier and two steps from an AGW-denier. Until I have the time for some experiments that I'm contemplating, I'll bow out if discussing my reasoning.
On the bigger issue, the theoreticians have proven themselves untrustworthy and their conspiratorial behavior is Legion. Note the lack of any debate over applied-sciences vs. the Gov't funded theories.
fascistcat 2 months ago
@fascistcat Good luck with your experiments. You may want to try radiation experiments afterward to see if you can come up with MRI [that was a joke].
If you get a chance post back here a link to your write-up of the experiment and conclusions when you get it done.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda That statement is 100 percent bullshit only a person who doesn't know math or physics would say that. That is what happens when a uneducated phony tries to pretend to know stuff, he isn't even educated enough to fake it. To determine the general solution to the physical relationship you must be able to represent the relationship in a continuum this can not be done with our atmosphere so such solutions are not possible. Approximation methods must be used which are highly debatable.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 What are you talking about? Every use of mathematics to a real world problem is modeling and approximations. The planet surface is partitioned into a number of sections and each section is solved in approximate fashion with some sections using different techniques than others. How do you think weather forecasting is done?
hozelda 2 months ago
@fascistcat The fact is, our atmosphere is impossible to model using exact mathematics because of the amorphous nature of clouds prevents it. Those results must be approximated using empirical methods which can vary greatly and are easy to fudge for anyone who wants to choose an outcome for their model. Climate science guys jobs depend on existence of Global warming, their job security depends on having results that show warming- not the truth.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 Every single thing created in technology is based on approximations. You won't be able to find an exception.
Most climate scientists' job do not depend on the existence of global warming, but I get the feeling your job exists by bad-mouthing climate science.
hozelda 2 months ago
@Navila1 BTW, I agree that models can be fudged. So what are you doing about it besides trying foolishly to pretend (are you pretending?) that the greenhouse effect is not real and carbon dioxide does not contribute to warming our atmosphere? If you know what you were talking about, you would be there looking over lines of Fortran code to see where the climate models fail.
I'm still waiting for you to turn your talking nonsense into actual math.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda I would be shocked if they were using fortran so out dated. Yes, i would be interested in seeing what assumptions were made in the use of such modeling if it even exists and were open to the public. Though no comprehensive model even exists looking at the beginning patchwork would still be interesting though far from anything conclusive.
Navila1 2 months ago
@Navila1 Google model e. You should be able to find a source code download for a model used by giss. I took a look some weeks back and it was laden with Fortran. There is no problem using Fortran. Fortran was designed for this kind of programming. Newer models might use something else, I don't know.
I hope to see a fork of this source base that is maintained in a fashion more amenable to contributions from the public.
hozelda 2 months ago
@Navila1 I concur. These non-applied sciences are dependent on government funding and studies (Pew et al.) show that these fields are overrun with Leftist hacks.
There are no heavier-than-air flight deniers, even though it's crazy that a 200 ton plane can get off the ground. It's counter-intuitive, but we see millions of successful demonstrations annually. Not just models and appeals to authority, but verifiable testing.
fascistcat 2 months ago
This experiment is not meant to be a clone of the earth's atmosphere. It is only to demonstrate that absorption by CO2 of some heat radiation does take place.
By absorbing and emitting this heat, the CO2 serves just like a thick fog that blurs "light" behind it. Turn the CO2 knob to increase the "IR" fog intensity. This is why the IR view of the candle disappears at high CO2 levels.
On earth, the CO2 (H2O also) warms atmosphere, with some of this heat going as radiation back to earth surface.
hozelda 3 months ago
The sun is much hotter than the candle and emits radiation that mostly has a higher frequency. This radiation is not absorbed by CO2 gas, but passes through it. It is absorbed, however, by complex molecules (eg, the earth and most solids). The complex molecules on the earth's surface radiate so that the CO2 does capture it and trap it a bit near the earth.
The candle here emits radiation that does not get caught in the CO2 (eg, the visible candle light)., but the IR camera only shows IR range.
hozelda 3 months ago
There is plenty of misunderstanding here about how the erroneously titled ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is supposed to work. The factual explanation is on Wikipedia under “Electromagnetic absorption by water”. It is a requirement that both water vapour and Carbon dioxide need to be present.
malshy 3 months ago
@malshy You are confused.
Energy from the sun (higher frequency photons mostly) largely passes through the atmosphere and hits the earth to heat it. The greenhouse gases then increase this temperature further because the earth radiates at frequencies that are absorbed by the greenhouse gasses.
hozelda 3 months ago
@malshy .. I should have added.. the absorption from the ghg then becomes an emission at some related frequency and in a random direction. Near the ground, many of these random emissions from ghg manage to hit the earth to add to the constant flow of energy the earth is already receiving from the sun. This extra energy coming at the earth raises temp.
Energy comes in from sun to earth at high freq, goes back out at low freq, but some of this low freq is caught by ghg and bounced back to earth.
hozelda 3 months ago
Strong absorbance by water vapor occurs at wavelengths around 2900, 1950 and 1450 nanometers.
Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nanometers.
Theoretically a mixture of the two gases could cut off the passage of IR and thus the Earth might warm substantially. The whole scenario was thought up by Al Gore and Ken Lay. Google “Enron: The Godfather of Kyoto” for the full story.
malshy 3 months ago
What this experiment demonstrates; In an atmosphere of CO2 little heat would reach the Earth directly but the atmosphere would warm to some small extent.
malshy 3 months ago
If Infra Red light is shone through vapour free air the IR would not be unaffected because N2, O2 and Ar all have absorption bands. The addition of water vapour reduces the IR significantly and a 50:50 mix of CO2 and H2O (no air present) reduces it by around as much again.
In the atmosphere the effect of additional CO2 must be to cool the Earth. There may be some small warming of the atmosphere which has a very effective cooling mechanism – mainly by huge convection currents, and precipitation.
malshy 3 months ago
Comment removed
malshy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So therefore these vapours and gasses reduce the passage of IR and act in a similar way to that of sunglasses to light.
Conversely at night – the air temperature really plummets (in the deserts anyway) the additional 60ppm of CO2 for which man is probably not responsible aids in an infinitesimal way to keep us warm at night.
malshy 3 months ago
Comment removed
malshy 3 months ago
Comment removed
malshy 3 months ago
If CO2 cuts out yellow then why do we get yellow light from the sun? According to this experiment CO2 in the atmosphere should cool the Earth and not warm it.
malshy 4 months ago
@malshy You are looking at the output of a camera that can process the input into any color it wants. "Yellow" is not an issue here. The screen only shows a section of infrared radiation, unlike the camera filming the guy, which shows visible light waves.
This experiment shows that the CO2 reradiates certain infrared radiation coming from the candle. It's a fog effect but for infrared rather than for visible light. You don't see distinct elements in fog because of reradiation in all directions.
hozelda 3 months ago
@malshy ..also note that the sun hits the earth largely with radiation at a different (and higher) frequency than body heat infrared (which is what CO2 captures well). This passes straight through the CO2 on the way down. On the way up, the earth converts that captured energy into the lower frequencies, which are then "trapped" to a fair degree by the CO2, water, etc. Global warming is an issue today because we are releasing (net) CO2 in very large quantities without a counterbalancing cycle.
hozelda 3 months ago
Why didn't the ir camera pick up his body heat? How could the CO2 block every wavelength of ir radiation coming from the flame?
Either the camera or the computer is 'enhancing' the experiment. Otherwise, I could fill a trash bag with CO2, put it on my head and sneak into Ft. Knox.
fascistcat 4 months ago
@fascistcat the guards at fort knox don't have infrared eyes. They'll see you alright. And yes the computer is enhancing this effect. Night vision goggles enhance or you wouldn't be able to see people clearly since even at night everything radiates infrared (most things radiate near the ambient temperature). His body heat is obviously part of what the computer is designed to block out when it was calibrated.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda I was being sardonic with the Ft Knox bit, but was dead serious about these fraudulent 'experiments' being put out to mislead the young or ill-informed.
It is patently obvious that CO2 doesn't block radiation outside of of a couple narrow bands and that within these narrow radiation bands the IR light would be blocked by ambient atmosphere over just a couple dozen yards.
I want disclosure on the camera, filters, software, hardware and chamber construction materials.
fascistcat 3 months ago
@fascistcat I agree that this could be a hoax. In fact, maybe the candle was there on the screen but the video was pixel modified. Clearly, if you want to believe something, you should set up the experiment yourself and perform it yourself. Come up with a hypothesis and then test it yourself. That is what Richard Muller did recently to address the question of biased and flawed global climate data. He was expecting his analysis to get the opposite result. He didn't trust climate scientists.
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat I have no idea where you stand on global warming, co2, man being a problem, etc. You may want to hop over to bbickmore 's website. Right now he has a couple of recent presentations on his blog you may find interesting. skepticalscience also has an argument's section that addresses a bunch of myths against global warming. You'll find many online detractors with complaints but not a single model/explanation that does a fair job of explaining average global temps past and present.
hozelda 3 months ago
@fascistcat Actually, his body heat is likely not picked up despite the calibration being able to pick it up (is my guess). Apparently the bit of CO2 in the pipe initially is enough to obscure his low body radiation but not the high candle radiation. You have to add even more CO2 to blurry out the candle. If you have something that burns even hotter than that candle, it might still show up somewhat but can then be fogged out by adding yet more CO2.
hozelda 3 months ago
Junk science!!!!
zakmatew 5 months ago
neat, so the guy is saving the sunlight heat is being absorbed by our co2 atmosphere. So our suns light is not being able to heat our earth as effectively because like the small sun the candle the heat is being absorbed by the co2 before it can reach the earth and heat us. Sound more like an argument for co2 causing global cooling. Thought, i don't believe it that either.
Navila1 5 months ago
@Navila1 Dunno if you're genuine or trolling, but you've got it backwards. In this experiment the candle represents the heat radiated by the Earth when warmed by the Sun. The camera is like a satellite in space measuring infra-red radiation (heat) emitted to space. The tube with CO2 is the Earth's atmosphere. So as CO2 rises in the atmosphere, less heat is emitted to space.
jondoig 5 months ago
@jondoig Are you really that stupid? You think earth is more like fire? Than fire is to fire? You are a sucker. .. The point is only a stupid fuck wouldn't see how false and nonsensical the assumptions are compared to real life.
Navila1 4 months ago
@Navila1 The sun emits mostly high energy (high frequency) "light". Our planet is full of complex molecules and captures nearly all of it. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot capture but a small part of that downward radiation from the sun. Then the "magic" happens. The earth reradiates that energy upwards but at a lower frequency. That frequency range does get mopped up a lot by CO2, water vapor, and some other gases. That's the atmosphere effect, but we are adding unchecked CO2 at a fast rate.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda No cares about your ideas about magic. However, the video clearly shows how sunlight aka the candles light is absorbed by the atmosphere before it hits earth.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 study up. The instructional presentation to show an effect is not designed to mimic the earth system. As fascistcat pointed out, this video is not representative of what would happen to candle heat. The video shows an effect related to what happens to planetary heat, which is at much lower temperatures. CO2 stops very little high frequency photon sun energy on the way down but stops a fair amount of lower freq earth radiation on way up. "Wrong frequency" photons are invisible to CO2.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda This video is from a BBC series called Earth: The Climate Wars. It was certainly meant to demonstrate 'Greenhouse Effect' which was supposed to block out 100% of IR.
There is a window between approximately 8000 and 14000 nm, in the far-infrared spectrum, carbon dioxide and water absorption is weak.and allows most of the thermal radiation in this band to be radiated out to space, keeping the Earth's atmosphere from going into thermal runaway.
malshy 3 months ago
@hozelda Sorry, child. Your the one that should try going to school. The point is the conclusions that are tried to pull out experiment is Total BS and is laughable to a person like me who actually does a degree in thermal dynamics. Your miss understanding and miss use of the concepts of heat and temperature in previous sentence show me that you don't even have an introductory level of thermal.
Navila1 3 months ago
@Navila1 From the page that fasisctcat provided: "In The Climate Wars [1] (BBC1) the presenter, Iain Stewart, demonstrated that CO2 absorbs Infrared (IR) energy and so showed how it can trap heat in the Earths atmosphere contributing to the so called 'green house effect' [2]."
Does or does not this demo/experiment suggest that CO2 can "trap heat"? This is not a formal experiment of discovery. Audience is young students. Language ("heat") is not formal. I'm not sure you really understand this.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda Yes, this is call pseudo-science and i find it appalling to watch. Young naive kids and uneducated adults are being mislead. Put scientist in the room are even an undergrad that degree in a field that deal with thermal dynamics and "experiment" would be shredded to pieces before it even started. The "demonstration" does not reflect what we see in the real world. That is exactly why they choose the young and naive as there audience because educated people would not listen.
Navila1 3 months ago
Ice cores show a trend over 400,000 years that appears to be cyclical, much more reliable than "cherry picked" data with only 40 years of history.
The liberals have lost the global warming debate because too many informed Americans are not buying the liberal bias on this topic. Americans know that it is only a ruse for a political power grab.
FidelityRealEstate 7 months ago
@svar42....
"BOGUS experiment" ? What's boring is the denier's formula of branding every experiment, or research into why earth's atmospheric and sea surface temperature is rising as "Bogus". So let's just continue to drive on like we have been doing... -there's plenty of oil and coal to burn, so I guess we'll just find out the hard way who's right and who's wrong.
Teknokossack 7 months ago
Yes, CO2 is one of the gases that absorbs infrared, but it does not mean it is the driver for "global" warming. Furthermore, there are naturally occurring materials such as clouds that reflect infrared in addition to the plants, trees and vegetation that converts it. Total solar irradiance better explains the Keeling Curve than CO2. The misnomer is "global" warming and "global" climate science.
callahans44 7 months ago
@callahans44
"Yes, CO2 is one of the gases that absorbs infrared, but it does not mean it is the driver for "global" warming."
/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
AndrianGA 7 months ago
@Teknokossack - Plants, Trees and Vegetation process CO2 and remove CO2 from the atmosphere - thus allowing heat to escape from the earth. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster plants, trees and vegetation grow. The earth is a dynamic environment which has been adapting to challenges for billions of years.
You are the one who should pay more attention to your freshman year high school courses.
FidelityRealEstate 9 months ago
@FidelityRealEstate
Then how do you explain this /wiki/Keeling_Curve
AndrianGA 7 months ago
@AndrianGA Then how can you explain the Vostok Ice Core Data?
For argument's sake, planting more trees on a mass scale is far more acceptable than allowing the government to use this as a way to control the means of production.
Can you explain why leftist politicians want to control the means of production through Cap and Trade?
FidelityRealEstate 7 months ago
@FidelityRealEstate
Can you explain how the data from Vostok Ice Cores invalidate the evidence for global warming?
Which evidence is over ruled by the Vostok Ice Cores?
Is it the fact that CO2 concentration is rising? or is it the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared?
"planting more trees on a mass scale"
If only that was enough.
"Can you explain why leftist politicians want to control the means of production through Cap and Trade?"
This is like asking:
"Did you stop beating your wife? "
AndrianGA 7 months ago
@AndrianGA Ice cores show a trend over 400,000 years that appears to be cyclical, gives a larger historical perspective, and is much more reliable than "cherry picked" data with only 40 years of history.
I once considered myself an environmentalist until I discovered that the movement was hijacked by leftists and I was lied to by faulty science. The liberals have lost the global warming debate and have set back the environmental movement for a generation.
FidelityRealEstate 7 months ago
@FidelityRealEstate
ok, obviously you haven't seen the readings, allow me:
/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
AndrianGA 7 months ago
@FidelityRealEstate
As you can see one the picture I showed you, the CO2 concentration right now is twice as much as it ever was in the past 400,000 years, the cycles you see are due to ice ages.
Because of the Vostok Ice cores we know that CO2 concentration right now is double of that of 650,000 years ago. To put that in perspective, it's 7 ice ages ago.
AndrianGA 7 months ago
@AndrianGA What picture? Regardless, it still doesn't prove global warming and the liberals lost the global warming debate in this country.
They used the environmental movement as an excuse to grab political power through "Cap & Trade" and control the means of production and lost credibility. Sadly, their political scheme has set the legitimate environmental movement back a generation.
Why not simply have class action lawsuits against polluters like Minnesota vs 3M?
FidelityRealEstate 7 months ago
@FidelityRealEstate
WTF does liberals have to do with evidence???
I can't paste links here, but do me a favor, go to wikipedia, in the search bar type in "Atmospheric concentrations of CO2" scroll down to "Past variations", right there you will see the data you're talking about which obviously you've never seen. Please note the current CO2 concentration at time 0 zero.
AndrianGA 7 months ago
Comment removed
bridgers872 9 months ago
Where are the trees, foliage, and vegetation in this experiment?
They "conveniently" don't include this because the earth adapts to additional CO2 in the atmosphere by vegetation processing CO2 quicker, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and thus allowing heat to escape!
FidelityRealEstate 9 months ago
@FidelityRealEstate ......the purpose of the experiment is to show that C02 indeed traps heat. Pay more attention if you want to be known as a skeptic, rather than a denier.
Teknokossack 9 months ago
@Teknokossack 1st thing ... drop the "denier" crap. It's boring! Next, what was the proportion of CO2 in that tube? I suspect it was somewhere north of 50%. Do you know how much CO2 is in our atmosphere? It is about 390 ppm ... that's PARTS PER MILLION! This was a BOGUS experiment.
svar42 7 months ago
The carbon dioxide isn't putting the candle out, and it's not supposed to represent Earth. This experiment is showing that carbon dioxide is trapping the candle's heat, which prevents it from reaching the camera.
AdHominus 10 months ago
This is a totally flawed experiment if trying to prove that climate change is due to rising CO2 levels. Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 0.038%. The experiment raises this towards 100% to prove the point! This is bad science. The experiment should show at what concentration of CO2 it starts to make a difference.
morninlordy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
O Jesus, son of Mary! Is thy Lord able to send down for us a table spread with food from heaven?
jesussonofmary1432.blogspot dot com
9999999999999999999999999999999-8888888888888888888888888888888
ahmd1431 11 months ago
This video is a Total Fail.....
Look at it as the candle representing the Sun and the camera as Planet Earth.
Are they saying that CO2 is going to extinguish the Sun?
I know CO2 is used in (normal) fire fighting but, putting the Sun out? I think not.
Snupy2100 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I meant to say make a video where CO2 is 0.039% of gas within the tube."
And a tube of 10 km or so. Do you want to try it?. Just look at the Top of Atmosphere Satellite Measurements.
phergont 1 year ago
The problems with this video, it's flaws, are that whilst it shows a correct example of what happens with a candle when held against a closed tube filled with CO2 it then incorrectly draws a comparison between that and the Earth. The two reasons this is flawed is because, 1) the environment of that tube is mostly static; the Earth is far more dynamic, and most importantly, 2) the tube is a mostly closed system; the Earth is an open one. It's good science poorly paired to make a bad comparison.
DRAKULU 1 year ago 2
@DRAKULU
All that matters is the amount of energy coming into the system and the amount of energy going out. The inner dynamics are irrelevant to the energy balance. The earth's atmosphere is a closed system insofar as gravity keeps the gas molecules within a boundary just as the cylinder walls do for the experiment shown. Both systems allow radiation to escape through the walls. The atmosphere would be better represented by a series of cylinders end to end with decreasing gas pressure.
pikesplitman 1 year ago
@pikesplitman,
"The earth's atmosphere is a closed system...Both systems allow radiation to escape through the walls."
Hence, not a closed system.
"The atmosphere would be better represented by a series of cylinders end to end with decreasing gas pressure."
The point of this video was simply to show the (heat) energy absorption power of CO2, which is good to illustrate, but I wouldn't draw any direct conclusions beyond that.
DRAKULU 1 year ago
Comment removed
DRAKULU 1 year ago
@RandomConcepts Good point, I think the stumbling drunk science of global warming is in serious need of an intervention by rest of the scientific family.
xplanes4u 1 year ago
Be careful, maybe this experiment blows your mind ! xD
sabberschnute 1 year ago
Spending billions solving imaginary problems. Wonderful!
TubeScrewed 1 year ago
get off twitter ....you twit jerk
dryice0103 1 year ago
This video has been doctored. The man is paid by government goons to lie to people with trick camera techniques. Don't believe it. Its all lies.
feelzthelove 1 year ago
@feelzthelove trick camera techniques? wtf? if you want to doubt the extrapolation made to he earth that is one thing, but don't make up stuff about trick cameras.
caddy38 1 year ago
Fear global cooling idiots... CO2 is what plants crave!
xplanes4u 1 year ago 2
@djaxefield We add CO2 and we cut down trees and destroy all sorts of things that absorb CO2 that is not a problem? Our burning of fossil fuels generates a lot of CO2 as well as heat, put the two together how lovely. Still don't believe me? Go into your garage check the temperature, then turn on your car and leave it on for 20 minutes with every door closed in the garage. When you come back check the temoerature again oh and try breathing :)
MrPedosmile 1 year ago
If we didn't have CO2 in the atmosphere we would all burn alive! This whole mandmade global warming is one giant con. Man makes less than 1% of CO2 that enters the atmosphere. History of high and low CO2 does not match temperature changes. Temperatues do have an exact match with activity on the sun. And that is what's going on, we have no influence.
djaxefield 1 year ago
Comment removed
djaxefield 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A lot of you have some misconceptions about how infrared spectroscopy works. See this link to help you get a better understanding of how it all works:
how-it-looks.blogspot.com/2010/01/primer-on-infrared-spectroscopy-and.html
chmrjg123 1 year ago
If CO2 absorbs the IR that means atmosphere would heat up but that also means sea surface temperature would drop as less IR would reach the sea surface.
But we do not see sea surface temperature drop, i.e. FAIL!!!!
Greeniemaxx 1 year ago
@Greeniemaxx The oceans are warmed by the visible light, not the IR.
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
@Greeniemaxx your first proposition is wrong, therefore your conclusion is moot. The ocean's energy absorption is increasing, and we have measured it. See "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications". The temperature in land, ocean and troposphere (the latter has more uncertainty) is rising as predicted. The stratosphere is cooling as predicted. Scientists already predicted by how much according to the GHG and nailed the results.
gininginin 1 year ago
The concentration of gas in that tube is ridiculous compared to the 0.038% in our atmosphere. The fact is temperature drives CO2 not the other way round. The CO2 concentration only changed its trend roughly 800 years after temperature had done the same thing. There have been many papers that showed this fact. For example, a paper by Lowell Stott et al. in Science (2007) showed that 19,000 ago, when the last ice age started to go away, CO2 lagged by about 1,000 years, too.
giptonsilly 1 year ago
@giptonsilly
Of course the gas is more concentrated in the tube, but the atmosphere is much longer. Say the tube is 100% CO2 and and half a metre long, this gives 1/2 metre of CO2. 3/4 of the atmosphere is within 11km, so we may say that 0.039% is spread over 8.25km, if we assume that the atmosphere drops of linearly. 8250m * 0.039% gives 3.22m of pure CO2. More than is in the cylinder!
MightyDrunken 1 year ago
@giptonsilly
True in much of the historic record CO2 has risen in a response to raising temperatures. What does this mean? In the past orbital and other effects have influenced the climate and increased temperature. The Earth as a whole responds by releasing CO2 from the ocean, soil and biosphere, hence the lag.
However this does not mean that CO2 does not cause warming. It means if we add CO2, then the Earth will add more too as the temp warms. Double whammy.
MightyDrunken 1 year ago
@MightyDrunken I'm not sure I really care anymore, there is a lot more bad stuff going on in the world. I truly believe climate change is compleatly natural. The engineered credit crunch, 9/11, war on terror, swine flu, the coming cashless society & pretend man made climate change is all part of a much bigger agenda for world domination by the private banks, you may think I'm compleatly nuts but everything I have been talking about for years is all coming true.Its all part of the new world order
giptonsilly 1 year ago
@giptonsilly Seems to me if we end up with a cashless society it would be the best thing for the human race, it really would not matter who ruled.
Cash + No robots = slavery
No cash + Robots = freedom
A new world order is Inevitable, not to mention needed. We have the tech and ability to make a world that is truly good for the first time in human history. Call me a optimistic fool but it seems like undeniable logic to me, its the transition that's going to suck Balls lol.
AzraelofLegion 1 year ago
@AzraelofLegion Fuck that I was born free and I will die free, a cashless society would be the worst thing for everybody. We might as well all become communists. You might think a new world order is needed but I tell you something I will try my hardest to fuck the new world order and If I die trying so be it, I don't want to live in a shitty world controlled by a few rich wankers and I don't want that happening to my kids. FUCK THE NEW WORLD ORDER
giptonsilly 1 year ago
@giptonsilly And that's why it's being done in secret. Everyone has this same fear for good reason (due to the past). This is why horrific things are going to happen, people have to suffer before they will open there eye's. There is no longer a need for humans to work jobs due to our tech level, no jobs means no purchasing power and no purchasing power means no economy.This is the future of our current system. Things will change rather we agree with it or not
Watch zeitgeist addendum (its free).
AzraelofLegion 1 year ago
A "crocodile hunter" wannabee :)
longbeachboy57 1 year ago
Have the alarmist no shame?
longbeachboy57 1 year ago
Could you please make a video demonstrating the different camera projections without CO2, and with a CO2 concentration of 0.389ppm? Wouldn't that more clearly display the current effect of the man made CO2 in our atmosphere?
But, the difference in images won't be noticeable, you say? Hmmmm, exactly!
I just wish I understood why there are so many people presenting fake science to prove their point about the effects of CO2 on our global temperature.
HypnoticGuy4u 1 year ago
@HypnoticGuy4u
Before making ignorant comments, either do the experiment with a research grade spectrometer or check the scientific literature for the results of someone that has. Look in the HITRAN spectral database, for example. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 389 ppm, but 0.389 ppm is easily measured.
pikesplitman 1 year ago
@pikesplitman oops, my mistake. I meant to say make a video where CO2 is 0.039% of gas within the tube.
Just like the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Of course that is all CO2, both naturally occurring and man-made in our atmosphere, not just man-made.
So, go on then. Let's see you make such a video. It would be a LOT more valid than just letting the CO2 flow until something happens. heck, water vapor would have a noticeable effect too! LOL
HypnoticGuy4u 1 year ago
Dear Dr. This is not heat trapping, you have just demonstrated the low thermal conductivity of CO2 (relative to air): of course the flame disappears. You would have had better luck using methane gas - that would have got the desired glow - lol!
Scientist's like yourself are the only things in this universe that have found a use for your so called heat trapping abilities of CO2 and it comes in the form of this trickery / junk documentary. Nothing else has a heat related probem with it.
campgalley 1 year ago
@campgalley
Conductivity is a mass transport phenomenon. The IR camera is measuring photons moving through the gas, not molecular motion. The image is extinguished due to absorption of photons. By the way, the rate of heat transfer via conduction is related to the mean molecular speed. The ratio between N2 and CO2 is sqrt(28/44) =0.80, which would not explain the disappearance of the image.
pikesplitman 1 year ago 2
Adding any type air molecules to the tube without subtracking any causes less infared to go through it because it's harder for the photons to go through is if they keep bumping into air molecules.
blahyapyap 1 year ago
NO CONCENTRATION FACTOR ! 0.389ppm to ? 99999ppm? Never seem to address this issue.
Of course HAZMAT chem regs QUOTE: < 50,000ppm of CO2 as deadly.
But humans Exhale 57,000 ppm per 500ml with every breath,when the body is at rest.
So why is mouth to mouth resuscitation still a life saving procedure, and not a case of attempted murder by excessive CO2 poisoning?
0.389ppm is a minute trace element. there are CO2 dry ice experiments on here to . Has production stopped? lol
erHotWAXX2 1 year ago
Comment removed
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
hhh
skeetagrimshaw 1 year ago
How many PPM was the CO2 in the container? My question is important since the video suggests the concentration in our atmosphere is going to get to some absurd level vastly higher than it is now and at a rate vastly faster than it has been over the last several decades.
00dfm00 1 year ago
@00dfm00 What difference does it make? The point of video is not to suggest what the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would become, the point of the video is to demonstrate that the people claiming CO2 is not a greenhouse gas are mistaken. CO2 absorbs heat. Assertion made, point proven.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon No, that wasn't the point of the video. Who the hell claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? All the skeptics think it is. The debate is on how big of a role it plays relative to other greenhouse gassed and how much mankind is contributing to it. This video does nothing address those issues and creates a false analogy.
00dfm00 1 year ago
@00dfm00 The falsities you will find are extremely prolific.
CO2 is a non-issue but its deployment for the planned new economics is still underway. Thus the lie is being maintained, but it will fall away, just as all the other deceptions.
pondman27 1 year ago
@00dfm00 Yes it WAS the point of the video, and I've heard countless skeptics indeed say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all. If you haven't heard the "plant food" mantra, you haven't been listening. The point of this video: does CO2 absorb heat? Yes. End of point. The role of CO2 versus other greenhouse gases is not the subject of this video. There are some great videos on how CO2 compares to say, water vapor--but that's not the issue this particular clip is tackling.
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon Since there are countless skeptics, please name a few that have appeared in the magazines, newspapers, etc, that state CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Should be easy, given your glowing confidence. (And youtubers don't count.) And co2scienceDOTorg has a vast database on all sorts of edible plants that do great with more CO2. Just because soy or wheat could care less, doesn't mean a lot of others don't benefit.
00dfm00 1 year ago
@00dfm00 Oh suddenly YouTubers don't count? And what are you then? AFA the plant issue goes, no duh. I wasn't disputing that, I was just pointing out that's the mantra from many skeptics. "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it's plant food." Actual scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change don't say such nonsense, but we weren't talking about them until you moved the goalposts just now. Google: CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. 2.6 million hits. You're right, nobody says this. LOL
PlasteredDragon 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon My assumption was that we were talking about experts in the field. That's why I said not to include YouTuber skeptics since then we would have to include the YouTube Chicken Littles that think global warming is going to be so bad that only mountain tops will be habitable.
00dfm00 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon
It is so dissappointing to find the number of people blinded by rhetoric & convoluted algorithms. CO2 is but one aspect of the way Carbon moves through the living on this little sphere. As such, by design, it is incapable of influencing climate & its abundance in the troposphere, varying as it does with altitude is concentrated at lower levels, where it is carried down again by water.
pondman27 1 year ago
@PlasteredDragon The claim that CO2 is a warming gas should be challenged.
Given its concentration and physical characteristics, its cycle through the living & unliving and most importantly, its increased abundance during warmer (higher biogenic productivity) periods tells us that during clement conditions, carbon (through the living) rises & grows (forests). The during coller times, it returns inward even to the deep.
pondman27 1 year ago
Do you know anything about basic planetary science? How different wavelengths react differently to different molecular compounds?
JimmyeDallas 1 year ago