@NoEcologyNoEconomy 550 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20x our pre-industrial CO2 baselines, positve feedback did NOT happen. Ergo, the white unicorn called the "runaway greenhouse effect" did NOT happen. The excuse given by alarmists is the sun was cooler. Was it 20x cooler?
@nlpjohn, that claim is countered by this article: "Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?" (Skeptical Science website)
What you're doing is selectively dumbing-down the scenario by leaving out large amounts of context. It's too complicated to explain in a sound-byte, so it gets passed off as a reasonable argument, as do most denial talking-points. Many of the details will never be "common sense." But the basic premise of CO2 trapping heat can't be ignored.
@NoEcologyNoEconomy LOL! Thank you for the hanging curve ball. ALL the models show that the in the tropics, the upper troposphere should create a hot spot of trapped heat based on the concept of "moist adiabat". However temp data shows no "hot spot". So either the surface temp data is crap or the troposphere temp data is crap. And skeptics have been criticizing the surface temp data for YEARS for being both incompetant and dishonest. surfacestations]org
@NoEcologyNoEconomy Everyone knows that CO2 has heat trapping abilities - the point is that its been proved that CO2 does not drive temperatures or cause climate change.
Hahaha, the people that come on this basic video whiches describes and proves the enhanced greenhouse effect in laymans terms, and yet still state that climate change is a lie makes me giggle. Wow. Get an education and some common sense.
There was an excellent debate on the award-winning Canadian news show, The Agenda. It featured two prominent climate scientists, Richard Lindzen and Hadi Dowlatabadi. In the debate they carefully (using good science) debunk the claims of the Global Warming/Climate Change movement. Nobody who watches this debate can reasonably continue to believe in global warming. You can use Google to find it.
Reading this thread is like reading brainwashed kids without any cohesive science based understanding.
Picture this: You are watching one of those hollywood movie where a handful of scientists are running around in planes and cars trying to get out to public a dire warning of an impeding cataclysmal event that will transpire in ten years time.
But news, government and internet are spelling out a fraud of science. The energy and government are colluding with each other stockpiling BILLIONS.
C02. 0.9C rise from 23.9C which about 9.9 C higher than earths average of about 14C which is 32C higher itself due to GHG. so the effect is amplified by 9.9+32/32 = 1.3 recip= 0.76.
They stuck in 350ppm man has put in 390-280= 110 350/110 = 3.2 recip = 0.31 so the rise due to man there 0.9C*0.76*0.31=0.21C and for last 200yrs 1*0.76*0.31=0.24C
0.24C rise per 110ppm Co2 which means CO2 as % 0f GHG = 0.24*280/110=0.61C of 32 = 1.9%.
@DontBendOverForAllah:"C02. 0.9C rise from 23.9C which about 9.9 C higher than earths average of about 14C which is 32C higher itself due to GHG. so the effect is amplified by 9.9+32/32 = 1.3 recip= 0.76."
You can put your calculations in your butt, it's wrong at both ends. CO2 concentration is risen about 20ppm in the last 100 years, but it has no atmospheric effect anyway so it even could be 30000ppmö
"due to man there 0.9C*0.76*0.31=0.21C and for last 200yrs 1*0.76*0.31=0.24C"
The average temperature is falling, a new ice age is coming, like always on this planet, due to his orbit and the sun activity. There is no GW due to man, a small vulcano can emit more than 2000-times more CO2 than China does in 4 weeks.
The evidence is right here for all to see. Yet people still cling to excuses. Sure Volcanic ash and solar cycles and the earths orbit are part of geological climate variation but what we just saw proves that we can effect the climate beyond what it would have been if we didn't pollute and de-forrest. So all the talk of all the other factors is just excuses. Sure if a giant asteroid hits us it'll effect the climate more than our pollution, but that doesnt stop our pollution harming us anyway!
CO2 equivalent of ghg production of cars and factories, powerplants etc. is 6,5 gigatons, animals however produce 150 giagtons, fallen leaves: 350 gigatons and the biggest source of are oceans. Do you really think that we as a mankind do have non-nuclear capabilities of changing entire planets climate? Thats complete ***** And I didnt even mention that the most powerfull and common ghg is water vapor.
@smolkafilip "CO2 equivalent of ghg production of cars and factories, powerplants etc. is 6,5 gigatons, animals however..."
Without the fossil fuel contribution there was a balance, that balance is broken,
Water vapour is not being generated like CO2 and lasts a fraction of the time in the atmosphere.
We humans have changed the environment. What was covered with trees is open land. The plains of the MidWest USA are not what they were. Yes we can, and are, changing the climate.
@acutube50 OK. Thats your opinion. And its your right to have one. You can live in a fuckin pit eating grass only and I wouldnt care. But stop taxing my gasoline, stop taxing my electricity, stop telling me what kind of car i should have and stop using public (my) funds to support so called green energy, beacuse I dont believe in man made global warming and you have no right to make me contribute on your stupid ideas.
@acutube50 Who decides what is fact and what is just an opinion? Government? Majority? Im sorry but I will not accept that. If you like facts so much, maybe you could fill some of my blanks.
If warming causes so much trouble and is so bad, what is the ideal average global temperature?
Why are solar panels so green, when they can never produce as much energy during their lifetime as it took to make them? And dont say that it is not true. I have my relatives at ministry of green stuff.
@acutube50 Yeah, you can say how tall you are, but that is just a single number. We are talking about global average temeprature. I can measure it on south pole and claim that global temperature is -40C you see the difference? And what about meassuring past temperatures? There are so many ways to do that and its very easy to manipulate the study and make it show what you wanna "find out".
@smolkafilip "I can measure it on south pole and claim that global temperature is -40C you see the difference?"
Yes, you missed out the word 'average'. The global average temperature is mathematically defined by those making the measurement. A definition such as yours (temperature at the S. Pole) would make you a laughing stock. Studies are subject to rigorous scrutiny, any 'manipulation' would ruin a scientist's career.
@smolkafilip "And what about meassuring past temperatures?"
There are several ways of obtaining past temperatures, the so-called proxies. Similarly there are ways to determine the CO2 composition of the atmosphere. The different methods have to give similar answers otherwise they are suspect.
@acutube50 Yeah, manufacturer claims. Well, he definietly wouldnt tell you that its not a power source, its just a freakin baterry that doesnt work unless its 8-18AM. ABout the temperature, I wont let it go so easily. I want a fuckin number. And why do you think, that before industrialisation, it was the right temperature? What if it was cold period? But if global warming is a price for our civilization level, I am willing to pay.
@smolkafilip "Yeah, manufacturer claims. Well, he definietly wouldnt tell you that its not a power source..."
In the UK we have some quite strong laws and regulations on what may be claimed by a supplier. Further any false claims would be seized on by people such as you and the spurious claims would not last long.
@acutube50 Childer should be woried about national debt, not about stupid teories. And sea level is NOT going to rise, so vulnerable people are OK. And you still didnt tell me the right temeprature. I WANT THE NUMBER!
@vrooomie1:"Ah, spoken like a true, undereducated denialist. Carry on, for the truth shall show you to be the fool you are."
Its not spoken like true, it IS true! You will find proofs when you ask the people, who live in Oceania (region which is "harmed by the sea level rise"). You can also ask some universities, like the University of Alabama, Montreal or Dublin.
Btw The truth already showed YOU to be a fool. So dont even try to distribute your mental crap, everyone knows you....
@smolkafilip:"Who decides what is fact and what is just an opinion? Government? Majority?"
The CORRECT answer is a combination of one or more SCIENTISTS, who make STUDIES and/or EXPERIMENTS and/or OBSERVATIONS and collect data which proves their hypothesis/theories to a FACT!
@acutube50 If our climate is driven by man-made CO2, why there is no corellation between CO2 levels and global temperature? For ex. during the post-war economic boom, global temperature was declining even though CO2 production was rising incredibly fast? Why is warming so bad? It used to be much hotter before industrial revolution. You know why Greenland is called green land even though there is just ice? It used to be green man! In fact, our climate is pretty cold these days.
@acutube50 Around the edges of course. So why there is so much scare with those pictures of Greenlad supposedly getting smaller each year? Ice is disappearing from the edges. We cant see any green yet.
@acutube50:""why there is no corellation between CO2 levels and global temperature?"
There is such a correlation."
WRONG! In the Ice Ages, the CO2 conc. was 4-times higher than today, proven fact, you can find the saved information about the climate of almost every era in the arctic/antarctic ice.
@Razor95321 "WRONG! In the Ice Ages, the CO2 conc. was 4-times higher than today, proven fact,"
Look up 'Ice Age" on wikipedia. They have a nice little graph showing CO2 levels and temperature, There's a very strong correlation. You are either a fool or a liar.
No we can't, don't listen to the dumbass puppet, controlled by lobbyists.
The climate and the waether are dependant from the earth and sun orbit and other cosmic influences, we are just humans and the physical laws are the same all over the universe.
@Razor95321 I said "The plains of the MidWest USA are not what they were" You said "Where did you pick such crap?"
History. 300 hundred years ago, say, the Plains did not have cities, roads, farms, what have you. They used to be open grassland with large herds of buffalo, other animals and some native humans. All of them essentially extinct, including the grass.
@Razor95321 "the plains of North America do not effect the climate."
Well, they do have a small effect but my point was the dramatic change wrought over a relatively short time by man. Obviously too subtle a point for you.
@smolkafilip:" CO2 equivalent of ghg production of cars and factories, powerplants etc. is 6,5 gigatons, animals however produce 150 giagtons, fallen leaves: 350 gigatons and the biggest source of are oceans."
The last part is wrong, a single Vulcano can emit 700 GT per HOUR!
And we see, no global warming, January 2012 was measured as the coldest month since 25 years, all over the Northern hemisphere!!!
@Razor95321 I salute you sir for following the path of science. I know the kind of dogmatic people that you come against as I too suffer the same problem. Hopefully one day there people will understand that science is not about consensus but about truth. Keep up the good work and hopefully one day people people will realise after our tireless efforts to tell them.
@acutube50 There is a 500 year lag between CO2 levels and temperature levels. This means that CO2 increase is in fact a device of temperature increase and not the other way around. In fact empirical data shows that there is a regular pattern to the heating and cooling of the planet. It follows in line with cosmic rays from collapsing stars acting as aerosols for the water vapour to latch onto and form low clouds which reflect sunlight. When in spiral arm cold temp. When out warm temp
@Halofanbiggest "There is a 500 year lag between CO2 levels and temperature levels"
You are talking about the ice ages when the prime driver is not CO2. Different cause different effects. This is not an ice age. (and the lag is apparently 600-1000 years)
The science of CO2 and its GHG effect is old science, well understood, non-controversial. The predictions of global temp and CO2 levels are roughly in line with what has been observed.
@acutube50:"You are talking about the ice ages when the prime driver is not CO2."
CO2 is, as I told, NO PRIME DRIVER.
The earth climate has a regular warm- and cold period change. Our climate is effected by COSMIC changes, mostly the earth orbit, but also the motion of the sun has an influence.
You can prove that can you? You have actual hard evidence? Science papers? Observations? There's a mass of evidence that says it is and from people around the world who are far more reputable than you.
I dont have to prove it, just because it was proven multiple times.
"You have actual hard evidence? Science papers? Observations?"
Oh yes! I read many studies, looked at real weather data, but the most important thing: I know something about physics, and there are laws, which make a GHE totally inpossible.
"There's a mass of evidence that says it is and from people around the world who are far more reputable than you."
Well, there is a really big mass of faked data, faked stuff which is called "evidence" or "proof" and a much bigger mass of corrupt, ignorant and totally criminal liars, thieves, betrayers and so on.
But there are 10000 scientists who mobilized against the GHE-lie, and THEY have a MUCH bigger mass of PROOFS, STUDIES, DATA... and the best thing is: Everything they say is true, proven and stabled by physical facts.
@acutube50:"The science of CO2 and its GHG effect is old science, well understood, non-controversial"
Kirchhoff, Boltzmann, Wood and many other great scientists would ROTATE in their graves!
The GHG was proven as false, more than hundred years ago and that not only once! "The predictions of global temp and CO2 levels are roughly in line with what has been observed."
Kid, the original data is not the same as the one given by the IPCC.
@Razor95321 "The GHG was proven as false, more than hundred years ago"
An outrageous lie, made the more so considering the content of the video you are supposed to be commenting on.
"the original data is not the same as the one given by the IPCC"
So you misunderstand science and data, observations are never exact, and the IPCC which does not do research but collates and reports the work done by others.
You are nothing but a pathetic little troll who's one tactic is to lie.
"....IPCC which does not do research but collates and reports the work done by others."
I think you didnt understand yet, what the IPCC really does; I will help you: The IPCC collects weather data and other information from scientists and universities, changes them to false data covering the GHE-lie and pay the scientists, universities, politicians and the media to shut their mouths about it. Than they collect (steal is a better word) money for the "climate Protection"
@Halofanbiggest "It follows in line with cosmic rays from collapsing stars acting as aerosols for the water vapour"
You are talking about the CERN experiment that did find some particles that could act as nuclei for droplet formation except for them being , I think, 100 times too small.
Cosmic rays may play a part in the temperature but the flux does not match the temp rises in the last few decades. So, no it ain't cosmic rays.
@acutube50:"Apart from all the colder ones you mean? In this part of the world, Britain, January was remarkably mild hardly ever dropping below zero."
Now I would go to the eye doctor, when I was you....Look at Spain: The palms are FROZEN; Eastern Europe: 70 cold casualties....Italy: 80 cm snow in Rome....and Britain is pretty snowy too....
Why do people hate the idea of green energy anyway? Using up such a powerful and limited source of energy such as fossil fuels when it is unnecessary seems pretty short-sighted to begin with. Not to mention they are filthy sources of energy. See exhibit Los Angeles. Even if there were problems with the models for climate change, there are still so many reasons to become more efficient and cleaner.
Well the temp is about 10 degrees above earths average which includes 30 degrees from GHG so the change is factored about 30% high plus they stuck in 350ppm - man has stuck in 70ppm so that is upped by a factor of 5 so that would make man's contribution to earths temperature about 0.135 degrees. This would also indicate water vapour acounts for about 97% of GHG. However that 7% C02 appearing on the computer would disqualify this as Science - but it's better than nothing..
I don't think that they actually used glass. Most glass that we buy absorbs infrared. If they used an infrared absorbing glass roof then all houses would have displayed a green house effect including the control.
"NOT shining from a 90* angle"
Glaciers are found near the equator so your objection is contrived.
Anti-socialists and anti-Marxists need to learn EQUAL time for all opinions on economic theory and give equal time in media to Marxists. I don't hear you complaining about religions getting free tax breaks that other organizations don't get.
None of this changes the fact that AGW is real and serious and happening now and requires tough laws to fight.
@mphello:"Even a 12-year-old kid gets it. Why can't Republicans?"
Cos the republicans are tired of this climate change nonsense! And you guys protecting the CO2 climate change should use your OWN brain instead of swollowing this lies....
@mphello I'm sorry I think you mean leading scientists as many of them completely disagree with global warming theory. Look at all the videos on The Cloud Mystery. I mean ALL of them and tell me that PhD Henrik Svensmark and many other PhD scientists are wrong. CO2 is in actual fact the least powerful heat trapping gas and water is the most. It denies the basic principals of thermodynamics to suggest that CO2 is heating the planet and it defies impirical data throughout history.
@Halofanbiggest Bullshit. 97% of climate scientists know AGW is real and serious. Phil Jones, Michael Mann, American Geophysical Unit, Ben Santer, James Hansen.
Why do you persist in repeating the same lies the deniers put on their blogs without bothering to check sources?
@smolkafilip Except for the fact that Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be quite accurate, in the BEST study, which was funded by your butt buddies the Koch Bros. Oopps...they got an answer they DIDN'T like!
@mphello I will not rest until you have seen the whole of The Cloud Mystery and transcribe every single word from it to me. Only THEN can you tell me about it. 97% is Bull so tell me were you got that number. Did you also know that all the scientists you have mentioned have been involved in the CLIMATE-GATE 1 and 2 manipulation of the climate models to show things such as the famous "hockey stick". You ignore to watch Henrick Svensmarks cloud mystery and until you see it all you can't argue.
@Halofanbiggest "CO2 is in actual fact the least powerful heat trapping gas and water is the most." Wow, did you ever flunk Chem 101, sunshine! Your stupidity is awe-inspring!
@vrooomie1 In UNIVERSITY water vapor in the atmosphere is shown to be the most potent and heat trapping gas (opposite effect when composed as cloud is reflection effect). What are you talking about Michal Mann having the very accurate hockey stick. He cherry picked that data like nothing. Do you have any what the latest IPCC report is. It shows that the temperature has not warmed at all over the last 20 years. Look at truth: The Cloud Mystery 1/6. It will change your life
man-made CO2 emissions count for 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, there is not enough. We need much more CO2 to improve the climate & increase crop yields.
@Razor95321 I thought you understood the concept of global warming, you are confusing it with local heath waves. This is going to be a boring battle... ok... volcanoes emit only 1/100 of human emissions and computer simulations at 17 different places in the world computing 4 different future scenarios that agree on the human causes global warming, predicting temperatures in air, land and sea, which would easily be debunked if it didn't agreed with observation. So what's your problem?
"computer simulations at 17 different places in the world computing 4 different future scenarios that agree on the human causes global warming,"
I think this Computer simulation was developed by some IPCC liars, so don't wonder that it shows you the world after the "climate change" (which does not exist indeed)
"predicting temperatures in air, land and sea,"
The air is not warm, especially when you're more than 1 km above the ground....
My problem is the IPCC, a wannabe-scientistic organization filled with liars.
My problem is the systematic climate change propaganda, which breaches basic physical facts like the Kirchhoff and Planck radiation laws.
My problem is this nonsense, which is teached in the school and in the universities, which is distributed and broadcasted by "informative" channnels like BBC, Discovery, arte.....
Hmm so the computers shows 7.3% That is 73000ppm= 208 times above normal. So what would it be like living in an the CO2 box if that was the atmosphere? What would it take to put 7.3% CO2 into the atomsphere? I bet it would be many trillions of tonns, if there is that amount locked away. Can someone do the math?
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.
@jbfrodsham Can't wait to see this, I thought 2012 was going to be a boring year! I am sure this will come true, after all look at the thousand of End of World Predictions since the beginning of man, surely the End of Times CO2 Gospel has to be right! :)
@Gr4yW0rld I would guess you have to overload. CO2 absorbs very little over the distances equal to the dimensions of the boxes. They probably added whatever was necessary to get about a degree change. The computers shows 7% for CO2 and ppm (not ppb) for methane. It was the control box that had the typical CO2/methane concentration levels in our atmosphere. The CO2 box overloads the concentration to simulate in a box the entirety of CO2 effect from the entire atmosphere, I'd guess.
@hozelda I can understand an outstandingly high concentration for these kinds of tests. For the purpose of them displaying the quality of "greenhouse gas" For a quantitative experiment, we would need to use realistic variables, one real world variable is an exceedingly long time. One degree over the course of ten years can have massive effects on the world's ecosystems. I dont think mythbusters have the money to do a ten year long test so they just did a qualitative experiment
@hozelda Thanks for that, so what would it be like living in an the CO2 box if that was the atmosphere? Properly die from lack of oxygen? What would it take to put 7% CO2 into the atomsphere? I bet it would be many trillions of tonns, if there is that amount locked away.
@Gr4yW0rld I should mention that I stated in the comments a month back that we don't know what that 7% means. This is true; however, I have a bit better understanding today of the "greenhouse gas effect", and I don't see how you can isolate that effect without having a great bunch of CO2 in such a little box.
I have lots more to learn. It would help if the experiment details were provided, so we could all understand this better.
And even better, do your own experiment, describe it accurately, and show how the results contradict with what they showed here as pertains to any CO2 warming theory/effect.
BTW, although I have disagreed with a lot of things you have said (or the same things repeatedly), I stated I am not sure how any particularly tinting might work. I agree that reflection (as you mentioned at one point) can be a major reason rather than absorption. We don't see except in a narrow visible light range, so we can't really see if the tinting is transparent or reflective or absorptive at any particular range. We'd have to look at specific material and look at its properties.
@codeprimate "rubbish, people have taken infrared photo's of glass before, it is dark (opaque)"
I have no idea what you are replying to.
By the way, glass emits infrared itself when on earth. Perhaps you are talking about a camera effect that blackens out things that fall below a certain reading. Infrared refers to a very broad range and the emissivity constant (and approximation) might be (?) very low.
I am sure you have seen video of heated glass glowing and feeling hot to the touch.
@codeprimate I am sure you have seen night vision goggles that show a tree to be black.. but that doesn't mean it is not emitting lots of IR radiation. The devices are engineered to identify humans (for example) as clearly as possible without letting other objects spoil the recognition.
@hozelda infrared photography, the darker something is on an IR photo, the less IR light is transmits/emits or reflects. There is plenty of IR photography available on the web.
trees are often cooler than the surrounding because they expend work (water evaporates from the tree to cool them). Without expending work, trees would be the same temperature as the surrounds.
@codeprimate I agree that the darker on film, the less hot (at least generally, since some particular might have an odd behavior in some range). But "black" means that the range fell below what that material captures or what was enhanced by the photographer or whatever.
Out of curiosity, water evaporates from the trees to cool them to what temperature?.. [I brought trees up in the context of night vision goggles/video that show much of the environment, eg trees, to be near black.]
@hozelda I think I will leave very soon. If you do think that this mythbusters experiment is bogus, you should consider writing to them explaining why (preferably with numbers to back your statements up). They might reply with their reasoning.
Typical glass car windows allow high energy radiation from sun to enter but block IR radiation from inside.. to a large degree (yes, there are losses from conduction across the glass and convection from the air outside cooling the heated glass and heated car.. until a balance is reached which is obviously much higher than if the car was in shade or if convection could cool the inside directly).
The temperatures were calibrated before the CO2 was added. Do you think they would adjust the lamps after adding the CO2? That would make no sense. Look at the order in which they performed the steps (at least as best we can guess from the film).
You are free to perform the experiment yourself or try to coax someone else with time and a few extra bucks to do it.
@hozelda the radiated heat is not from the lights, it is from the boxs adjacent to them. each box heats slightly and radiates heat (as there is no chance for convection to move the heat out of a sealed box). I've done a few experiments in my time. If the units were thermally insulated on all sides except the side facing the light (to prevent radiative warming of the other units.), and the pressure was constant between the tanks, then it would be a reasonable experiment.
@hozelda also, they have contaminated their results by adding a very large amount of water (in the form of ice, which will end up as water vapour in the box). water vapour is a much more opaque to the IR spectrum than CO2.
@codeprimate the contamination of water vapor is a red herring. Do you have a theory that explains how roughly the same amount of ice in each box would lead to a quick rise of about 1 degree only after the CO2 was added.. yet somehow have that rise not be attributed largely to the addition of this co2?
@codeprimate the relative heating is nonsense. You are assuming the lamps were at a given distance, but they aren't. They were adjusted to balance out all energy sources so that the net on each box was the same temperature. That much seems logical from the setup described and the goals of the experiment (to start all 3 off on the same foot, at least to tenth degree C accuracy).
I think lots of people have done experiments "in their time". We have near one tenth C precision yielding 1 C change
@hozelda Oh, I see now where I wrote relative. I read one of your sentences wrong, but the meaning of what I interpreted was the same. You claim there are extra sources of radiation, heat, energy, whatever you want to call it. My point is that the lamps were calibrated to account for all of that so that the net result was that the temps were the same on all three boxes before the CO2 (methane) were added.
@hozelda There is no account made for heat trasnfer between the boxes through radiation. If you had 4 gas elements in a row with a pot of water on each, which would heat faster? all else being equal the two in the middle would heat quicker. as they are getting the convective heat frm below as well as RADIATIVE heat from both sides, whereas the outer pots would get only the convective heat from below and radiative heat from one side. It's not a large effect, but it is noticable.
@codeprimate I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the 4-box experiment (is the gas contained and cooler than the environment?), but the point is that saying "faster" can mean many things. My question is, if the boxes in this experiment shown on the vid were calibrated to the same temp, then what alternative theory are you proposing (with quantifiable numbers) to explain the rise of 1 degree soon after the gases were introduced? A hundredth of a degree is irrelevant.
@hozelda the four box experiment refers to the video we are commenting on. BTW - faster can't mean many things. It means either that something happens in less time, or more change happens in the same amount of time.
The boxes receiving the same input from the lights is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the experiment. The boxes will all radiate heat. this heat leaving in the form of IR will strike something. the two boxes in the middle recieve ~ twice as much radiated heat.
@codeprimate 100 miles per hour faster vs. 0 .005 miles per hour faster. These are different things, each of which can be called faster. "Faster" is a qualitative adjective and not a quantitative result.
You don't have any evidence or provide back-of-envelope calculations to suggest that those boxes weren't at the same temperature to the nearest tenth of a degree. You don't offer any calculations to claim that the side radiation or any other heat source is anything but negligible.
also - they have the control boxes on the ends or the row so the methane and CO2 boxes are getting additional radiated heat from both sides, while the control boxes are getting additional radiated heat from only one side. Of course they are showing higher temperatures.
That temperature increase can probably be attributed to the increase in pressure. In making them airtight and then pumping them full of extra gases, they have demonstrated the ideal gas law. Also, the CO2 is supposed to slow the rate of heat loss, they should be measuring the rate of heat loss when the lamp is switched off. That would at least demonstrate an actual greenhouse effect.
@codeprimate Why should they turn the lamp off? No one is turning off the sun.
As for pv=nrt, n appears to have been increased to become 1.00005 times higher. Nothing else was done directly to the pressure, yet the temp became 297.95/296.9 = 1.00354 times larger. How in the world does pv=nrt predict that?
CO2 warming effect has been demonstrated in tests over and over for over a hundred years. The physics is solid.
@hozelda - the theory of greenhouse gases says the gas causes it to cool slower, so the effect would be observable when the lamp is switched off (ie: the proposed greenhouse effect should be detectable by the slowing down of IR emissions at night time - trapping heat for longer in the atmosphere). As pointed out above (by Gaowyim), the computer shows the level of CO2 at over 7%. so if you increase the pressure by over 7%, you would expect an increase in temperature. Look up isochoric process.
@codeprimate If you increase the pressure by 7%, you'd get a lot more warming according to your analysis.
Fact is that Gaowyim had no idea whatsoever what that 7% means and neither does anyone not using that software.
Also, greenhouse theory doesn't require turning the lamp off. Where did you get that idea? The radiation going up gets absorbed by CO2 and retransmitted. Some of the retransmit is back towards earth, leading to overall higher temps.
@hozelda CO2 trapping heat is like water trapping heat in the tropics (albeit to a MUCH smaller extent). During the day it's hot anyway (although not quite as hot as the greenhouse gas also inhibits a small amount of IR from reaching the surface), during the night the heat takes longer to radiate away, leading to wamer nights and a different climate profile. this is an actual greenhouse effect, it takes slightly longer to heat up, and a lot longer (depending on the IR opacity of the gas) to cool
@codeprimate Where do you get that it takes longer to warm up as a reason due to greenhouse effect? Ghg take affect largely from low IR radiation coming from the earth which absorbed high energy radiation from the sun (high energy, shortwave radiation that was largely transparent to CO2 on the way down). So ghg adds to what the temp would otherwise be.
@hozelda it's not just light that is being showered on the Earth by the sun, we are also showered with IR and UV rays. These are inhibited by greenhouse gases. You are thinking of it as an actual greenhouse. The effect of a greenhouse is due to stopping CONVECTION. Which is why it will get hotter in a tin shed (which emits IR readily, and transmits no light) than in an actual greenhouse.
@codeprimate the co2 and other gases block a small amount of the sun's ir and almost none of the uv (which is blocked largely by ozone and other effects). On the other hand, the earth re-radiates in the ir region where CO2 and water have great effect. So the CO2 block out little of the IR (or other) from the sun, but block in much ir from the earth.
As for the shed.. it is likely dark that one you mention. Real greenhouses reflect a lot of light. If they didn't the things inside would cook.
@hozelda real greenhouses transmit light - otherwise they would look dark, they look clear - therefore they TRANSMIT light. They reflect barely any light. They work primarily through stopping convection (which is how most of the heat is pumped from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere). Most heat from the Earth is CONDUCTED from the surface to the atmosphere and then CONVECTED to the upper atmosphere, the only stellar body that radiates most of it's heat from the surface is a STAR.
@codeprimate Every object on earth radiates (look up stefan boltzmann law). Our molecules capture energy from sun and from the atmosphere (and each other) and reradiate. The sun is our ultimate source, but our molecules radiate... at a low ir level.
greenhouses reflect and transmit. If they were dark, they would be much hotter (like that shed you mentioned).
Convection cools, naturally, but it doesn't stop the initial increased heat gradient (temp difference) from developing with ghg.
@hozelda a car with tinted windows is MUCH cooler on a summer day than a car with clear windows. Because tinted windows REFLECT light, clear windows TRANSMIT light. By your logic, the car with tinted windows should be hotter on a summer day. The shed is hot because it stops CONVECTION.
@codeprimate Are you saying a car with tinted windows up doesn't stop convection but a shed does?
Tinted windows can do lots of things, including absorbing next to window to avoid the inside of car absorbing and radiating all throughout the car's insides. We don't see all the radiation (our eyes only catch a tiny sliver). "Dark" tinting might work differently than we might think.
A hot object in the sun tends to get much hotter than a light one.
@hozelda any closed container will prevent convection. A hot object in the sun will not end up any hotter than anything else. They will all tend to the same temperature, the ambient temperature. The heat in the hot object will dissipate until it is at the same temperature. I can't argue physics with someone that has no knowledge at all of the laws of thermodynamics. Dark tinting works exactly as we think, by cutting the amount of visible light that is transmitted. Glass is opaque to IR already.
@codeprimate not everything in the sun is at the same temperature for various reasons. The "tend to the same temp" is meaningless if we keep the object constantly in the sun. What matters is rate in vs rate out until a balance is achieved. You can have hotter objects if they absorb more energy from the sun than a lighter object. Are you honestly saying that all "passive" objects we find outside in the sun are at the same temperature?
Calling me physics illiterate will not help your case.
@hozelda - it might not help my case, but pointing out a lack of understanding of the very basic physical principals involved is far from helping your case.
@codeprimate why are you resorting to attacks?.. My point in that comment is that I certainly have demonstrated an understanding of physics, so calling me challenged doesn't help your case. You would do better to address the points I bring up and avoid looking foolish in claiming I have no or little understanding of physics.
@codeprimate If dark tinting absorbs light, as I said, guess what? It is "cutting the amount" of light being transmitted, as you said. So were you arguing something there?
Glass is opaque to lower IR to a large extent, but, as I have said numerous times, the glass is not opaque to higher energy sunlight (a big hint: we can see through glass). Glass let's high energy photons in but "traps" in the larger number of low energy photons produced by the car in response to those high energy photons.
@hozelda The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to model blackbody radiation (useful for modelling STARS). You Earth is a grey-body, the stefan-boltzmann equations are not (directly) applicable.
@codeprimate wikipedia says, "A more general case is of a grey body, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its emissivity, \epsilon: j^{\star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}. "
Are you saying S-B can't apply in the grey body case?
@hozelda the temperature is not static, it is in a constant state of flux, you can apply the S-B law, but you have to apply it as an integral over time. The temp of earth is different across different areas and across different times. You can apply it, but not in the crude fashion of assuming the planets average temperature for the entire planet. This is modelling the planet as a star, which it quite obviously is not. That's why I said it wasn't directly applicable.
CO2's ability to trap heat has been generally understood since 1859 (Tyndall).
CO2 molecules vibrate in response to infrared, and that vibration generates retained energy.
I'm sure right-wingers are crying foul because their think-tank "experts" weren't consulted for this show.
NoEcologyNoEconomy 1 week ago
@NoEcologyNoEconomy 550 million years ago when CO2 levels were 20x our pre-industrial CO2 baselines, positve feedback did NOT happen. Ergo, the white unicorn called the "runaway greenhouse effect" did NOT happen. The excuse given by alarmists is the sun was cooler. Was it 20x cooler?
nlpjohn 1 week ago
@nlpjohn, that claim is countered by this article: "Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?" (Skeptical Science website)
What you're doing is selectively dumbing-down the scenario by leaving out large amounts of context. It's too complicated to explain in a sound-byte, so it gets passed off as a reasonable argument, as do most denial talking-points. Many of the details will never be "common sense." But the basic premise of CO2 trapping heat can't be ignored.
NoEcologyNoEconomy 1 week ago
@NoEcologyNoEconomy LOL! Thank you for the hanging curve ball. ALL the models show that the in the tropics, the upper troposphere should create a hot spot of trapped heat based on the concept of "moist adiabat". However temp data shows no "hot spot". So either the surface temp data is crap or the troposphere temp data is crap. And skeptics have been criticizing the surface temp data for YEARS for being both incompetant and dishonest. surfacestations]org
nlpjohn 1 week ago
@NoEcologyNoEconomy Everyone knows that CO2 has heat trapping abilities - the point is that its been proved that CO2 does not drive temperatures or cause climate change.
Illidanek 4 days ago
Hahaha, the people that come on this basic video whiches describes and proves the enhanced greenhouse effect in laymans terms, and yet still state that climate change is a lie makes me giggle. Wow. Get an education and some common sense.
lukster1991 1 week ago
Global Warming = Real.
lukealization 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There was an excellent debate on the award-winning Canadian news show, The Agenda. It featured two prominent climate scientists, Richard Lindzen and Hadi Dowlatabadi. In the debate they carefully (using good science) debunk the claims of the Global Warming/Climate Change movement. Nobody who watches this debate can reasonably continue to believe in global warming. You can use Google to find it.
jr73340 3 weeks ago
Reading this thread is like reading brainwashed kids without any cohesive science based understanding.
Picture this: You are watching one of those hollywood movie where a handful of scientists are running around in planes and cars trying to get out to public a dire warning of an impeding cataclysmal event that will transpire in ten years time.
But news, government and internet are spelling out a fraud of science. The energy and government are colluding with each other stockpiling BILLIONS.
MrRossBrisbane 3 weeks ago
OK I'm going to redo my calc more accurately
C02. 0.9C rise from 23.9C which about 9.9 C higher than earths average of about 14C which is 32C higher itself due to GHG. so the effect is amplified by 9.9+32/32 = 1.3 recip= 0.76.
They stuck in 350ppm man has put in 390-280= 110 350/110 = 3.2 recip = 0.31 so the rise due to man there 0.9C*0.76*0.31=0.21C and for last 200yrs 1*0.76*0.31=0.24C
0.24C rise per 110ppm Co2 which means CO2 as % 0f GHG = 0.24*280/110=0.61C of 32 = 1.9%.
DontBendOverForAllah 3 weeks ago
@DontBendOverForAllah:"C02. 0.9C rise from 23.9C which about 9.9 C higher than earths average of about 14C which is 32C higher itself due to GHG. so the effect is amplified by 9.9+32/32 = 1.3 recip= 0.76."
You can put your calculations in your butt, it's wrong at both ends. CO2 concentration is risen about 20ppm in the last 100 years, but it has no atmospheric effect anyway so it even could be 30000ppmö
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
"due to man there 0.9C*0.76*0.31=0.21C and for last 200yrs 1*0.76*0.31=0.24C"
The average temperature is falling, a new ice age is coming, like always on this planet, due to his orbit and the sun activity. There is no GW due to man, a small vulcano can emit more than 2000-times more CO2 than China does in 4 weeks.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 Have you no conscience about spreading such blatent lies?
CO2 concentration has risen from 280ppm to 390ppm in the last 200 years, an increase of about 40%.
w csiro au / greenhouse-gases
w esrl noaa gov / gmd / ccgg / trends / history html
It is far above the level at any time over the last few ice-age cycles.
Man emits *100 times* more CO2 than all the worlds volcanoes combined.
w skepticalscience com / argument php
Fact: You are lying and trying to corrupt.
ahaveland 3 weeks ago
The evidence is right here for all to see. Yet people still cling to excuses. Sure Volcanic ash and solar cycles and the earths orbit are part of geological climate variation but what we just saw proves that we can effect the climate beyond what it would have been if we didn't pollute and de-forrest. So all the talk of all the other factors is just excuses. Sure if a giant asteroid hits us it'll effect the climate more than our pollution, but that doesnt stop our pollution harming us anyway!
Battybattybats 3 weeks ago
@Battybattybats:"but what we just saw proves that we can effect the climate "
When you saw evidences, why don't you list them?
Correct answer: You don't have any
"Sure if a giant asteroid hits us it'll effect the climate more than our pollution,"
It will always effect the climate more than our "pollution" just because WE CAN NOT EFFECT THE CLIMATE ANYWAY!
And you should know that the CO2 is good for our plants....
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
CO2 equivalent of ghg production of cars and factories, powerplants etc. is 6,5 gigatons, animals however produce 150 giagtons, fallen leaves: 350 gigatons and the biggest source of are oceans. Do you really think that we as a mankind do have non-nuclear capabilities of changing entire planets climate? Thats complete ***** And I didnt even mention that the most powerfull and common ghg is water vapor.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "CO2 equivalent of ghg production of cars and factories, powerplants etc. is 6,5 gigatons, animals however..."
Without the fossil fuel contribution there was a balance, that balance is broken,
Water vapour is not being generated like CO2 and lasts a fraction of the time in the atmosphere.
We humans have changed the environment. What was covered with trees is open land. The plains of the MidWest USA are not what they were. Yes we can, and are, changing the climate.
acutube50 1 month ago
@acutube50 OK. Thats your opinion. And its your right to have one. You can live in a fuckin pit eating grass only and I wouldnt care. But stop taxing my gasoline, stop taxing my electricity, stop telling me what kind of car i should have and stop using public (my) funds to support so called green energy, beacuse I dont believe in man made global warming and you have no right to make me contribute on your stupid ideas.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "OK. Thats your opinion. And its your right to have one. You can live in a fuckin pit eating grass only"
Those are facts, sunshine, not opinions.
You are obviously having a pretty rough time of it, I hope things improve for you. Nonetheless facts are facts.
acutube50 1 month ago
@acutube50 Who decides what is fact and what is just an opinion? Government? Majority? Im sorry but I will not accept that. If you like facts so much, maybe you could fill some of my blanks.
If warming causes so much trouble and is so bad, what is the ideal average global temperature?
Why are solar panels so green, when they can never produce as much energy during their lifetime as it took to make them? And dont say that it is not true. I have my relatives at ministry of green stuff.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "Who decides what is fact"
Nature. I am 5ft 10in tall - fact not an opinion.
"what is the ideal average global temperature?"
The one that existed before massive industrialisation.
"Why are solar panels so green"
The ones I've had fitted claim to recover energy costs within 3-4 years. The panels are guaranteed for 25.
acutube50 1 month ago
@acutube50 Yeah, you can say how tall you are, but that is just a single number. We are talking about global average temeprature. I can measure it on south pole and claim that global temperature is -40C you see the difference? And what about meassuring past temperatures? There are so many ways to do that and its very easy to manipulate the study and make it show what you wanna "find out".
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "I can measure it on south pole and claim that global temperature is -40C you see the difference?"
Yes, you missed out the word 'average'. The global average temperature is mathematically defined by those making the measurement. A definition such as yours (temperature at the S. Pole) would make you a laughing stock. Studies are subject to rigorous scrutiny, any 'manipulation' would ruin a scientist's career.
acutube50 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "And what about meassuring past temperatures?"
There are several ways of obtaining past temperatures, the so-called proxies. Similarly there are ways to determine the CO2 composition of the atmosphere. The different methods have to give similar answers otherwise they are suspect.
acutube50 1 month ago
@acutube50 Yeah, manufacturer claims. Well, he definietly wouldnt tell you that its not a power source, its just a freakin baterry that doesnt work unless its 8-18AM. ABout the temperature, I wont let it go so easily. I want a fuckin number. And why do you think, that before industrialisation, it was the right temperature? What if it was cold period? But if global warming is a price for our civilization level, I am willing to pay.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smolkafilip "Yeah, manufacturer claims. Well, he definietly wouldnt tell you that its not a power source..."
In the UK we have some quite strong laws and regulations on what may be claimed by a supplier. Further any false claims would be seized on by people such as you and the spurious claims would not last long.
Ideal global temperature? Make it for the 1930's.
acutube50 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "if global warming is a price for our civilization level, I am willing to pay."
Of what of your children? and their children? What of those living in the more vulnerable areas of the world? Your complacency does not sit well.
acutube50 1 month ago
@acutube50 Childer should be woried about national debt, not about stupid teories. And sea level is NOT going to rise, so vulnerable people are OK. And you still didnt tell me the right temeprature. I WANT THE NUMBER!
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip Ah, spoken like a true, undereducated denialist. Carry on, for the truth shall show you to be the fool you are.
vrooomie1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vrooomie1:"Ah, spoken like a true, undereducated denialist. Carry on, for the truth shall show you to be the fool you are."
Its not spoken like true, it IS true! You will find proofs when you ask the people, who live in Oceania (region which is "harmed by the sea level rise"). You can also ask some universities, like the University of Alabama, Montreal or Dublin.
Btw The truth already showed YOU to be a fool. So dont even try to distribute your mental crap, everyone knows you....
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
@smolkafilip:"Who decides what is fact and what is just an opinion? Government? Majority?"
The CORRECT answer is a combination of one or more SCIENTISTS, who make STUDIES and/or EXPERIMENTS and/or OBSERVATIONS and collect data which proves their hypothesis/theories to a FACT!
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@acutube50 If our climate is driven by man-made CO2, why there is no corellation between CO2 levels and global temperature? For ex. during the post-war economic boom, global temperature was declining even though CO2 production was rising incredibly fast? Why is warming so bad? It used to be much hotter before industrial revolution. You know why Greenland is called green land even though there is just ice? It used to be green man! In fact, our climate is pretty cold these days.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip
"why there is no corellation between CO2 levels and global temperature?"
There is such a correlation.
"global temperature was declining "
Due to dust and aerosols from the dirty industries. Regulation has since changed that.
"It used to be green"
Perhaps around the edges a bit. The ice covering the rest is thousands of years old.
"our climate is pretty cold these days."
In the UK we are in the middle of a very middle winter after a very mild autumn.
acutube50 1 month ago
@acutube50 Around the edges of course. So why there is so much scare with those pictures of Greenlad supposedly getting smaller each year? Ice is disappearing from the edges. We cant see any green yet.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip "So why there is so much scare with those pictures of Greenlad supposedly getting smaller each year?"
The Greenland ice sheet is losing volume, not necessarily area.
The Arctic ice sheet, which I think is what you really mean, is definitely losing area, as well as thickness.
acutube50 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acutube50:"The Arctic ice sheet, which I think is what you really mean, is definitely losing area, as well as thickness."
Too bad, that pictures from space do not show any decrease of the arctic ice area. It EVEN increases!
You can find more information about that, when you type in "Climate Change Lie" in Google. A lot of good information, confirming physical facts.
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
@acutube50:""why there is no corellation between CO2 levels and global temperature?"
There is such a correlation."
WRONG! In the Ice Ages, the CO2 conc. was 4-times higher than today, proven fact, you can find the saved information about the climate of almost every era in the arctic/antarctic ice.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 "WRONG! In the Ice Ages, the CO2 conc. was 4-times higher than today, proven fact,"
Look up 'Ice Age" on wikipedia. They have a nice little graph showing CO2 levels and temperature, There's a very strong correlation. You are either a fool or a liar.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
@acutube50:"Look up 'Ice Age" on wikipedia."
No, lie-ipedia is not a good source for such information, the autors of these articles are usually IPCC-criminals.
"They have a nice little graph showing CO2 levels and temperature,"
Such a graph (when it's not faked) will show your no effect of CO2 to the temperature.
"You are either a fool or a liar."
You are both, and I am a fact-teller
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@smolkafilip "Our climate is pretty cold these days?" Could you be MORE of an ill-informed tool? I don't think so.
vrooomie1 3 weeks ago
@acutube50:"Those are facts, sunshine, not opinions."
Yea, and the physical facts say that there is neither a GHE, nor a AGW!
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@acutube50:"Without the fossil fuel contribution there was a balance, that balance is broken,"
Man! There is no "ecological balance", the entire Nature is based on changes and catastrophes. And you should know, the GHE is complete bullshit!
"The plains of the MidWest USA are not what they were"
Where did you pick such crap???
The plains of North America are there since the last Ice Ages (in these eras, the atmospheric CO2 conc. was up to 4-times higher than today!
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
"Yes we can, and are, changing the climate."
No we can't, don't listen to the dumbass puppet, controlled by lobbyists.
The climate and the waether are dependant from the earth and sun orbit and other cosmic influences, we are just humans and the physical laws are the same all over the universe.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 I said "The plains of the MidWest USA are not what they were" You said "Where did you pick such crap?"
History. 300 hundred years ago, say, the Plains did not have cities, roads, farms, what have you. They used to be open grassland with large herds of buffalo, other animals and some native humans. All of them essentially extinct, including the grass.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acutube50:"History. 300 hundred years ago, say, the Plains did not have cities, roads, farms,"
What has THIS to do with our climate?
"They used to be open grassland with large herds of buffalo,"
Ant they still are, just the buffalo has a smaller population. "All of them essentially extinct, including the grass."
There are still natives, buffalo and grass, WHO TOLD YOU THIS DIARRHEA????
And again, the plains of North America do not effect the climate.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 "the plains of North America do not effect the climate."
Well, they do have a small effect but my point was the dramatic change wrought over a relatively short time by man. Obviously too subtle a point for you.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
acutube50:"Well, they do have a small effect but my point was the dramatic change wrought over a relatively short time by man."
Nope, 90% of the physicians in the universities, schools and other etablishments will tell you that our climate is ONLY effected by cosmic influences.
And no, this point is not too subtle, its just (too) irrelevant.
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smolkafilip:" CO2 equivalent of ghg production of cars and factories, powerplants etc. is 6,5 gigatons, animals however produce 150 giagtons, fallen leaves: 350 gigatons and the biggest source of are oceans."
The last part is wrong, a single Vulcano can emit 700 GT per HOUR!
And we see, no global warming, January 2012 was measured as the coldest month since 25 years, all over the Northern hemisphere!!!
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
"Do you really think that we as a mankind do have non-nuclear capabilities of changing entire planets climate?"
Everyone who thinks this should refresh his entire science knowledge!
"Thats complete ***** And I didnt even mention that the most powerfull and common ghg is water vapor."
First part true, second part false; there are no GHGes, the GHE is nonsense, proven by Boltzmann, Wood and many other scientists.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 I salute you sir for following the path of science. I know the kind of dogmatic people that you come against as I too suffer the same problem. Hopefully one day there people will understand that science is not about consensus but about truth. Keep up the good work and hopefully one day people people will realise after our tireless efforts to tell them.
Halofanbiggest 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 "January 2012 was measured as the coldest month since 25 years"
Apart from all the colder ones you mean? In this part of the world, Britain, January was remarkably mild hardly ever dropping below zero.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
@acutube50 There is a 500 year lag between CO2 levels and temperature levels. This means that CO2 increase is in fact a device of temperature increase and not the other way around. In fact empirical data shows that there is a regular pattern to the heating and cooling of the planet. It follows in line with cosmic rays from collapsing stars acting as aerosols for the water vapour to latch onto and form low clouds which reflect sunlight. When in spiral arm cold temp. When out warm temp
Halofanbiggest 3 weeks ago
@Halofanbiggest "There is a 500 year lag between CO2 levels and temperature levels"
You are talking about the ice ages when the prime driver is not CO2. Different cause different effects. This is not an ice age. (and the lag is apparently 600-1000 years)
The science of CO2 and its GHG effect is old science, well understood, non-controversial. The predictions of global temp and CO2 levels are roughly in line with what has been observed.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
@acutube50:"You are talking about the ice ages when the prime driver is not CO2."
CO2 is, as I told, NO PRIME DRIVER.
The earth climate has a regular warm- and cold period change. Our climate is effected by COSMIC changes, mostly the earth orbit, but also the motion of the sun has an influence.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 "CO2 is, as I told, NO PRIME DRIVER."
You can prove that can you? You have actual hard evidence? Science papers? Observations? There's a mass of evidence that says it is and from people around the world who are far more reputable than you.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
@acutube50:"You can prove that can you?"
I dont have to prove it, just because it was proven multiple times.
"You have actual hard evidence? Science papers? Observations?"
Oh yes! I read many studies, looked at real weather data, but the most important thing: I know something about physics, and there are laws, which make a GHE totally inpossible.
"There's a mass of evidence that says it is and from people around the world who are far more reputable than you."
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
Well, there is a really big mass of faked data, faked stuff which is called "evidence" or "proof" and a much bigger mass of corrupt, ignorant and totally criminal liars, thieves, betrayers and so on.
But there are 10000 scientists who mobilized against the GHE-lie, and THEY have a MUCH bigger mass of PROOFS, STUDIES, DATA... and the best thing is: Everything they say is true, proven and stabled by physical facts.
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
@Razor95321 1/ Learn English.
2/ Do not pass go.
3/ Return to 3rd grade science and pay attention this time.
widebody123 3 weeks ago
@widebody123:"1/ Learn English."
I already did, 15 years ago. "3/ Return to 3rd grade science and pay attention this time."
Thats what YOU should do, especially because YOU did not release any good >wisdoms< but you think you can judge about physical facts.
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
@acutube50:"The science of CO2 and its GHG effect is old science, well understood, non-controversial"
Kirchhoff, Boltzmann, Wood and many other great scientists would ROTATE in their graves!
The GHG was proven as false, more than hundred years ago and that not only once! "The predictions of global temp and CO2 levels are roughly in line with what has been observed."
Kid, the original data is not the same as the one given by the IPCC.
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 "The GHG was proven as false, more than hundred years ago"
An outrageous lie, made the more so considering the content of the video you are supposed to be commenting on.
"the original data is not the same as the one given by the IPCC"
So you misunderstand science and data, observations are never exact, and the IPCC which does not do research but collates and reports the work done by others.
You are nothing but a pathetic little troll who's one tactic is to lie.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acutube50:"An outrageous lie, made the more so considering the content of the video you are supposed to be commenting on."
Of course. You know what, I got that a lot, especially from little yes-sayers who are not able to think freely and logically.
"So you misunderstand science and data"
No, I understood what real scientists said. After that, I found out how much data was simply faked by the terrorist organization IPCC.
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
"....IPCC which does not do research but collates and reports the work done by others."
I think you didnt understand yet, what the IPCC really does; I will help you: The IPCC collects weather data and other information from scientists and universities, changes them to false data covering the GHE-lie and pay the scientists, universities, politicians and the media to shut their mouths about it. Than they collect (steal is a better word) money for the "climate Protection"
Razor95321 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Halofanbiggest "It follows in line with cosmic rays from collapsing stars acting as aerosols for the water vapour"
You are talking about the CERN experiment that did find some particles that could act as nuclei for droplet formation except for them being , I think, 100 times too small.
Cosmic rays may play a part in the temperature but the flux does not match the temp rises in the last few decades. So, no it ain't cosmic rays.
acutube50 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acutube50:"Apart from all the colder ones you mean? In this part of the world, Britain, January was remarkably mild hardly ever dropping below zero."
Now I would go to the eye doctor, when I was you....Look at Spain: The palms are FROZEN; Eastern Europe: 70 cold casualties....Italy: 80 cm snow in Rome....and Britain is pretty snowy too....
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
Why do people hate the idea of green energy anyway? Using up such a powerful and limited source of energy such as fossil fuels when it is unnecessary seems pretty short-sighted to begin with. Not to mention they are filthy sources of energy. See exhibit Los Angeles. Even if there were problems with the models for climate change, there are still so many reasons to become more efficient and cleaner.
wilclif 1 month ago
Well the temp is about 10 degrees above earths average which includes 30 degrees from GHG so the change is factored about 30% high plus they stuck in 350ppm - man has stuck in 70ppm so that is upped by a factor of 5 so that would make man's contribution to earths temperature about 0.135 degrees. This would also indicate water vapour acounts for about 97% of GHG. However that 7% C02 appearing on the computer would disqualify this as Science - but it's better than nothing..
DontBendOverForAllah 1 month ago
Use GOOGLE, type in:"News of the climate lie" or "IPCC liar denies his lies"
A lot of CORRECT information, written understandable for every Midwest dumbass!
Razor95321 1 month ago
This video is COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!
The Atmosphere has NO glass roof! And there aren't more than one sun in our solar system. And the sun is NOT shining from a 90* angle in the arctic.
Razor95321 1 month ago
@Razor95321 "NO glass roof"
I don't think that they actually used glass. Most glass that we buy absorbs infrared. If they used an infrared absorbing glass roof then all houses would have displayed a green house effect including the control.
"NOT shining from a 90* angle"
Glaciers are found near the equator so your objection is contrived.
RasPesher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RasPesher:"Glaciers are found near the equator so your objection is contrived."
Really? So tell me where! "Most glass that we buy absorbs infrared."
Glass is transparent, it absorbs NOTHING! It reflects in the best case.
"If they used an infrared absorbing glass roof then all houses would have displayed a green house effect including the control."
A "Greenhouse effect" can only appear in a CLOSED system like the glass/plexiglass houses....
Razor95321 1 month ago
......The Earth IS NOT a closed system! Means that there is no GHE.
Btw, CO2 cannot absorb or reflect IR. This is a physical FACT!
Razor95321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Razor95321 "The Earth IS NOT a closed system! Means that there is no GHE.
Btw, CO2 cannot absorb or reflect IR. This is a physical FACT!"
Only your first statement is true, the rest are lies.
acutube50 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@acutube50:"Only your first statement is true, the rest are lies"
SAYS the GUY who distributes the unbelievable lies of the IPCC.
Btw, you did'nt even tell a good source of your statements!
Razor95321 3 weeks ago
Anti-socialists and anti-Marxists need to learn EQUAL time for all opinions on economic theory and give equal time in media to Marxists. I don't hear you complaining about religions getting free tax breaks that other organizations don't get.
None of this changes the fact that AGW is real and serious and happening now and requires tough laws to fight.
mphello 1 month ago
Even a 12-year-old kid gets it. Why can't Republicans?
mphello 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello:"Even a 12-year-old kid gets it. Why can't Republicans?"
Cos the republicans are tired of this climate change nonsense! And you guys protecting the CO2 climate change should use your OWN brain instead of swollowing this lies....
Razor95321 1 month ago
@mphello I'm sorry I think you mean leading scientists as many of them completely disagree with global warming theory. Look at all the videos on The Cloud Mystery. I mean ALL of them and tell me that PhD Henrik Svensmark and many other PhD scientists are wrong. CO2 is in actual fact the least powerful heat trapping gas and water is the most. It denies the basic principals of thermodynamics to suggest that CO2 is heating the planet and it defies impirical data throughout history.
Halofanbiggest 1 month ago
@Halofanbiggest Bullshit. 97% of climate scientists know AGW is real and serious. Phil Jones, Michael Mann, American Geophysical Unit, Ben Santer, James Hansen.
Why do you persist in repeating the same lies the deniers put on their blogs without bothering to check sources?
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Michael Mann? Michael "hockey stick" Mann? Nobody takes him srsly.
smolkafilip 1 month ago
@smolkafilip Only the world's leading scientists take Michael Mann seriously.
Meanwhile, lunatics like you believe in demagogue idiots like Loud Monckton.
mphello 1 month ago
@smolkafilip Except for the fact that Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be quite accurate, in the BEST study, which was funded by your butt buddies the Koch Bros. Oopps...they got an answer they DIDN'T like!
vrooomie1 3 weeks ago
@mphello I will not rest until you have seen the whole of The Cloud Mystery and transcribe every single word from it to me. Only THEN can you tell me about it. 97% is Bull so tell me were you got that number. Did you also know that all the scientists you have mentioned have been involved in the CLIMATE-GATE 1 and 2 manipulation of the climate models to show things such as the famous "hockey stick". You ignore to watch Henrick Svensmarks cloud mystery and until you see it all you can't argue.
Halofanbiggest 1 month ago
@Halofanbiggest I will not rest until you have read every single peer-reviewed article included in all the IPCC reports,
and you acknowledge the MONCKTONGATE arson and tax evasion fraud and the Exxon-Mobil denier-funding scandal!
Until then - you are a worthless unpatriotic meat-eating breeding anti-American piece of filth.
mphello 1 month ago 2
@Halofanbiggest "CO2 is in actual fact the least powerful heat trapping gas and water is the most." Wow, did you ever flunk Chem 101, sunshine! Your stupidity is awe-inspring!
vrooomie1 3 weeks ago
@vrooomie1 In UNIVERSITY water vapor in the atmosphere is shown to be the most potent and heat trapping gas (opposite effect when composed as cloud is reflection effect). What are you talking about Michal Mann having the very accurate hockey stick. He cherry picked that data like nothing. Do you have any what the latest IPCC report is. It shows that the temperature has not warmed at all over the last 20 years. Look at truth: The Cloud Mystery 1/6. It will change your life
Halofanbiggest 3 weeks ago
man-made CO2 emissions count for 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, there is not enough. We need much more CO2 to improve the climate & increase crop yields.
Galv140577 1 month ago
@Galv140577 You are completely right man ;)
But the much more relevant fact is, that CO2 CANNOT absorb or reflect infrared rays, such as any gas can't.
Climate Change = fucking lie!
Razor95321 1 month ago
My climate change monster will beat your non-factual conspiracy easily.
bvssvni 1 month ago
@bvssvni and how does your "climate change monster" look like?
Maybe like a map of Antarctica 2050? Or like a beach with palms in Alaska?
I'm very excited...
Razor95321 1 month ago
@Razor95321 I thought you understood the concept of global warming, you are confusing it with local heath waves. This is going to be a boring battle... ok... volcanoes emit only 1/100 of human emissions and computer simulations at 17 different places in the world computing 4 different future scenarios that agree on the human causes global warming, predicting temperatures in air, land and sea, which would easily be debunked if it didn't agreed with observation. So what's your problem?
bvssvni 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bvssvni:" I thought you understood the concept of global warming,"
I did, but it's completely incorrect, there are no greenhouse Gases, no gas can reflect IR-rays.
"This is going to be a boring battle"
When you always pretend to have the better arguments, sure!
"volcanoes emit only 1/100 of human emissions"
Complete Bullshit! The Mt St Helens Eruption 1980 emitted 2500 times more CO2 than the US produced in half a year at this time.
Razor95321 1 month ago
"computer simulations at 17 different places in the world computing 4 different future scenarios that agree on the human causes global warming,"
I think this Computer simulation was developed by some IPCC liars, so don't wonder that it shows you the world after the "climate change" (which does not exist indeed)
"predicting temperatures in air, land and sea,"
The air is not warm, especially when you're more than 1 km above the ground....
Razor95321 1 month ago
bvssvni:"So what's your problem?"
My problem is the IPCC, a wannabe-scientistic organization filled with liars.
My problem is the systematic climate change propaganda, which breaches basic physical facts like the Kirchhoff and Planck radiation laws.
My problem is this nonsense, which is teached in the school and in the universities, which is distributed and broadcasted by "informative" channnels like BBC, Discovery, arte.....
Razor95321 1 month ago
@Razor95321 Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, BLAH. Your bleating doesn't change reality, scooter.
vrooomie1 3 weeks ago
@Razor95321 "CO2 CANNOT absorb ... infrared rays"
That myth has been BUSTED
RasPesher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RasPesher:"That myth has been BUSTED"
Oh really? By who?
CO2 CANNOT absorb or reflect IR, this FACT was proven 1909 by Robert Wood!
Razor95321 1 month ago
@Razor95321 Bulllllllshit. As always.
vrooomie1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmm so the computers shows 7.3% That is 73000ppm= 208 times above normal. So what would it be like living in an the CO2 box if that was the atmosphere? What would it take to put 7.3% CO2 into the atomsphere? I bet it would be many trillions of tonns, if there is that amount locked away. Can someone do the math?
jbfrodsham 1 month ago
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.
jbfrodsham 1 month ago
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
Bibliographic reference courtesy of Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background on Global Warming.
I am waiting for this to happen......
jbfrodsham 1 month ago
@jbfrodsham Can't wait to see this, I thought 2012 was going to be a boring year! I am sure this will come true, after all look at the thousand of End of World Predictions since the beginning of man, surely the End of Times CO2 Gospel has to be right! :)
byronintegrated 1 month ago
What was the PPM used?
jbfrodsham 1 month ago
Anyone who denies the role of green house gases in climate is denying basic chemistry.
dookiecheez 1 month ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@dookiecheez:" Anyone who denies the role of green house gases in climate is denying basic chemistry."
Even if there was a GHE, if had NOTHING to do with chemistry. Pure physics, but pure nonsense!
The GHE denies basic physics, a gas can neither absorb nor reflect any kind of radiation including IR-rays.
Razor95321 1 month ago
I just wonder by what ppm or ppb did they increase the variables to?
Gr4yW0rld 2 months ago
@Gr4yW0rld I would guess you have to overload. CO2 absorbs very little over the distances equal to the dimensions of the boxes. They probably added whatever was necessary to get about a degree change. The computers shows 7% for CO2 and ppm (not ppb) for methane. It was the control box that had the typical CO2/methane concentration levels in our atmosphere. The CO2 box overloads the concentration to simulate in a box the entirety of CO2 effect from the entire atmosphere, I'd guess.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda I can understand an outstandingly high concentration for these kinds of tests. For the purpose of them displaying the quality of "greenhouse gas" For a quantitative experiment, we would need to use realistic variables, one real world variable is an exceedingly long time. One degree over the course of ten years can have massive effects on the world's ecosystems. I dont think mythbusters have the money to do a ten year long test so they just did a qualitative experiment
Gr4yW0rld 2 months ago
@hozelda Thanks for that, so what would it be like living in an the CO2 box if that was the atmosphere? Properly die from lack of oxygen? What would it take to put 7% CO2 into the atomsphere? I bet it would be many trillions of tonns, if there is that amount locked away.
jbfrodsham 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jbfrodsham
> Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012
I don't think you got that prediction from scientists. We are in 2012 already.
> What would it take to put 7% CO2 into the atomsphere?
approximately (and apparently):
7.0% inside little box experiment = 0.1% within our high atmosphere
hozelda 1 month ago
@Gr4yW0rld I should mention that I stated in the comments a month back that we don't know what that 7% means. This is true; however, I have a bit better understanding today of the "greenhouse gas effect", and I don't see how you can isolate that effect without having a great bunch of CO2 in such a little box.
I have lots more to learn. It would help if the experiment details were provided, so we could all understand this better.
hozelda 2 months ago
.. rich and hosting Mythbusting Mythbusters.
hozelda 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you do a good job, you might end up rich.
hozelda 3 months ago
And even better, do your own experiment, describe it accurately, and show how the results contradict with what they showed here as pertains to any CO2 warming theory/effect.
hozelda 3 months ago
BTW, although I have disagreed with a lot of things you have said (or the same things repeatedly), I stated I am not sure how any particularly tinting might work. I agree that reflection (as you mentioned at one point) can be a major reason rather than absorption. We don't see except in a narrow visible light range, so we can't really see if the tinting is transparent or reflective or absorptive at any particular range. We'd have to look at specific material and look at its properties.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda rubbish, people have taken infrared photo's of glass before, it is dark (opaque)
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate "rubbish, people have taken infrared photo's of glass before, it is dark (opaque)"
I have no idea what you are replying to.
By the way, glass emits infrared itself when on earth. Perhaps you are talking about a camera effect that blackens out things that fall below a certain reading. Infrared refers to a very broad range and the emissivity constant (and approximation) might be (?) very low.
I am sure you have seen video of heated glass glowing and feeling hot to the touch.
hozelda 3 months ago
@codeprimate I am sure you have seen night vision goggles that show a tree to be black.. but that doesn't mean it is not emitting lots of IR radiation. The devices are engineered to identify humans (for example) as clearly as possible without letting other objects spoil the recognition.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda infrared photography, the darker something is on an IR photo, the less IR light is transmits/emits or reflects. There is plenty of IR photography available on the web.
trees are often cooler than the surrounding because they expend work (water evaporates from the tree to cool them). Without expending work, trees would be the same temperature as the surrounds.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate I agree that the darker on film, the less hot (at least generally, since some particular might have an odd behavior in some range). But "black" means that the range fell below what that material captures or what was enhanced by the photographer or whatever.
Out of curiosity, water evaporates from the trees to cool them to what temperature?.. [I brought trees up in the context of night vision goggles/video that show much of the environment, eg trees, to be near black.]
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda I think I will leave very soon. If you do think that this mythbusters experiment is bogus, you should consider writing to them explaining why (preferably with numbers to back your statements up). They might reply with their reasoning.
hozelda 3 months ago
Typical glass car windows allow high energy radiation from sun to enter but block IR radiation from inside.. to a large degree (yes, there are losses from conduction across the glass and convection from the air outside cooling the heated glass and heated car.. until a balance is reached which is obviously much higher than if the car was in shade or if convection could cool the inside directly).
hozelda 3 months ago
The temperatures were calibrated before the CO2 was added. Do you think they would adjust the lamps after adding the CO2? That would make no sense. Look at the order in which they performed the steps (at least as best we can guess from the film).
You are free to perform the experiment yourself or try to coax someone else with time and a few extra bucks to do it.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda the radiated heat is not from the lights, it is from the boxs adjacent to them. each box heats slightly and radiates heat (as there is no chance for convection to move the heat out of a sealed box). I've done a few experiments in my time. If the units were thermally insulated on all sides except the side facing the light (to prevent radiative warming of the other units.), and the pressure was constant between the tanks, then it would be a reasonable experiment.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@hozelda also, they have contaminated their results by adding a very large amount of water (in the form of ice, which will end up as water vapour in the box). water vapour is a much more opaque to the IR spectrum than CO2.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate the contamination of water vapor is a red herring. Do you have a theory that explains how roughly the same amount of ice in each box would lead to a quick rise of about 1 degree only after the CO2 was added.. yet somehow have that rise not be attributed largely to the addition of this co2?
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda as stated before. radiative heating from the adjacent boxes would increase the temperature in the middle boxs more than the end ones.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate the relative heating is nonsense. You are assuming the lamps were at a given distance, but they aren't. They were adjusted to balance out all energy sources so that the net on each box was the same temperature. That much seems logical from the setup described and the goals of the experiment (to start all 3 off on the same foot, at least to tenth degree C accuracy).
I think lots of people have done experiments "in their time". We have near one tenth C precision yielding 1 C change
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda it's RADIATIVE heating, not relative heating. Please refer to a physics book, I'm sure your local library will have one.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate Did I misspell radiate and say relative? I have no idea what part of what I said you are complaining about.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda Oh, I see now where I wrote relative. I read one of your sentences wrong, but the meaning of what I interpreted was the same. You claim there are extra sources of radiation, heat, energy, whatever you want to call it. My point is that the lamps were calibrated to account for all of that so that the net result was that the temps were the same on all three boxes before the CO2 (methane) were added.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda There is no account made for heat trasnfer between the boxes through radiation. If you had 4 gas elements in a row with a pot of water on each, which would heat faster? all else being equal the two in the middle would heat quicker. as they are getting the convective heat frm below as well as RADIATIVE heat from both sides, whereas the outer pots would get only the convective heat from below and radiative heat from one side. It's not a large effect, but it is noticable.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the 4-box experiment (is the gas contained and cooler than the environment?), but the point is that saying "faster" can mean many things. My question is, if the boxes in this experiment shown on the vid were calibrated to the same temp, then what alternative theory are you proposing (with quantifiable numbers) to explain the rise of 1 degree soon after the gases were introduced? A hundredth of a degree is irrelevant.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda the four box experiment refers to the video we are commenting on. BTW - faster can't mean many things. It means either that something happens in less time, or more change happens in the same amount of time.
The boxes receiving the same input from the lights is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the experiment. The boxes will all radiate heat. this heat leaving in the form of IR will strike something. the two boxes in the middle recieve ~ twice as much radiated heat.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate 100 miles per hour faster vs. 0 .005 miles per hour faster. These are different things, each of which can be called faster. "Faster" is a qualitative adjective and not a quantitative result.
You don't have any evidence or provide back-of-envelope calculations to suggest that those boxes weren't at the same temperature to the nearest tenth of a degree. You don't offer any calculations to claim that the side radiation or any other heat source is anything but negligible.
hozelda 3 months ago
notice that both the methane and CO2 boxes were warmer.. BUT.. they both stabilized temperature-wise, they did NOT keep heating up.
EDraven32 4 months ago
also - they have the control boxes on the ends or the row so the methane and CO2 boxes are getting additional radiated heat from both sides, while the control boxes are getting additional radiated heat from only one side. Of course they are showing higher temperatures.
codeprimate 4 months ago
are they pumping gas into a sealed box?
PV = nRT.
That temperature increase can probably be attributed to the increase in pressure. In making them airtight and then pumping them full of extra gases, they have demonstrated the ideal gas law. Also, the CO2 is supposed to slow the rate of heat loss, they should be measuring the rate of heat loss when the lamp is switched off. That would at least demonstrate an actual greenhouse effect.
codeprimate 4 months ago
@codeprimate Why should they turn the lamp off? No one is turning off the sun.
As for pv=nrt, n appears to have been increased to become 1.00005 times higher. Nothing else was done directly to the pressure, yet the temp became 297.95/296.9 = 1.00354 times larger. How in the world does pv=nrt predict that?
CO2 warming effect has been demonstrated in tests over and over for over a hundred years. The physics is solid.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda - the theory of greenhouse gases says the gas causes it to cool slower, so the effect would be observable when the lamp is switched off (ie: the proposed greenhouse effect should be detectable by the slowing down of IR emissions at night time - trapping heat for longer in the atmosphere). As pointed out above (by Gaowyim), the computer shows the level of CO2 at over 7%. so if you increase the pressure by over 7%, you would expect an increase in temperature. Look up isochoric process.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate If you increase the pressure by 7%, you'd get a lot more warming according to your analysis.
Fact is that Gaowyim had no idea whatsoever what that 7% means and neither does anyone not using that software.
Also, greenhouse theory doesn't require turning the lamp off. Where did you get that idea? The radiation going up gets absorbed by CO2 and retransmitted. Some of the retransmit is back towards earth, leading to overall higher temps.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda CO2 trapping heat is like water trapping heat in the tropics (albeit to a MUCH smaller extent). During the day it's hot anyway (although not quite as hot as the greenhouse gas also inhibits a small amount of IR from reaching the surface), during the night the heat takes longer to radiate away, leading to wamer nights and a different climate profile. this is an actual greenhouse effect, it takes slightly longer to heat up, and a lot longer (depending on the IR opacity of the gas) to cool
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate Where do you get that it takes longer to warm up as a reason due to greenhouse effect? Ghg take affect largely from low IR radiation coming from the earth which absorbed high energy radiation from the sun (high energy, shortwave radiation that was largely transparent to CO2 on the way down). So ghg adds to what the temp would otherwise be.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda it's not just light that is being showered on the Earth by the sun, we are also showered with IR and UV rays. These are inhibited by greenhouse gases. You are thinking of it as an actual greenhouse. The effect of a greenhouse is due to stopping CONVECTION. Which is why it will get hotter in a tin shed (which emits IR readily, and transmits no light) than in an actual greenhouse.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate the co2 and other gases block a small amount of the sun's ir and almost none of the uv (which is blocked largely by ozone and other effects). On the other hand, the earth re-radiates in the ir region where CO2 and water have great effect. So the CO2 block out little of the IR (or other) from the sun, but block in much ir from the earth.
As for the shed.. it is likely dark that one you mention. Real greenhouses reflect a lot of light. If they didn't the things inside would cook.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda real greenhouses transmit light - otherwise they would look dark, they look clear - therefore they TRANSMIT light. They reflect barely any light. They work primarily through stopping convection (which is how most of the heat is pumped from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere). Most heat from the Earth is CONDUCTED from the surface to the atmosphere and then CONVECTED to the upper atmosphere, the only stellar body that radiates most of it's heat from the surface is a STAR.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate Every object on earth radiates (look up stefan boltzmann law). Our molecules capture energy from sun and from the atmosphere (and each other) and reradiate. The sun is our ultimate source, but our molecules radiate... at a low ir level.
greenhouses reflect and transmit. If they were dark, they would be much hotter (like that shed you mentioned).
Convection cools, naturally, but it doesn't stop the initial increased heat gradient (temp difference) from developing with ghg.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda a car with tinted windows is MUCH cooler on a summer day than a car with clear windows. Because tinted windows REFLECT light, clear windows TRANSMIT light. By your logic, the car with tinted windows should be hotter on a summer day. The shed is hot because it stops CONVECTION.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate Are you saying a car with tinted windows up doesn't stop convection but a shed does?
Tinted windows can do lots of things, including absorbing next to window to avoid the inside of car absorbing and radiating all throughout the car's insides. We don't see all the radiation (our eyes only catch a tiny sliver). "Dark" tinting might work differently than we might think.
A hot object in the sun tends to get much hotter than a light one.
The greenhouse glass and insides reflect some.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda any closed container will prevent convection. A hot object in the sun will not end up any hotter than anything else. They will all tend to the same temperature, the ambient temperature. The heat in the hot object will dissipate until it is at the same temperature. I can't argue physics with someone that has no knowledge at all of the laws of thermodynamics. Dark tinting works exactly as we think, by cutting the amount of visible light that is transmitted. Glass is opaque to IR already.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate not everything in the sun is at the same temperature for various reasons. The "tend to the same temp" is meaningless if we keep the object constantly in the sun. What matters is rate in vs rate out until a balance is achieved. You can have hotter objects if they absorb more energy from the sun than a lighter object. Are you honestly saying that all "passive" objects we find outside in the sun are at the same temperature?
Calling me physics illiterate will not help your case.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda - it might not help my case, but pointing out a lack of understanding of the very basic physical principals involved is far from helping your case.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate why are you resorting to attacks?.. My point in that comment is that I certainly have demonstrated an understanding of physics, so calling me challenged doesn't help your case. You would do better to address the points I bring up and avoid looking foolish in claiming I have no or little understanding of physics.
hozelda 3 months ago
@codeprimate If dark tinting absorbs light, as I said, guess what? It is "cutting the amount" of light being transmitted, as you said. So were you arguing something there?
Glass is opaque to lower IR to a large extent, but, as I have said numerous times, the glass is not opaque to higher energy sunlight (a big hint: we can see through glass). Glass let's high energy photons in but "traps" in the larger number of low energy photons produced by the car in response to those high energy photons.
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to model blackbody radiation (useful for modelling STARS). You Earth is a grey-body, the stefan-boltzmann equations are not (directly) applicable.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate wikipedia says, "A more general case is of a grey body, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its emissivity, \epsilon: j^{\star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}. "
Are you saying S-B can't apply in the grey body case?
hozelda 3 months ago
@hozelda the temperature is not static, it is in a constant state of flux, you can apply the S-B law, but you have to apply it as an integral over time. The temp of earth is different across different areas and across different times. You can apply it, but not in the crude fashion of assuming the planets average temperature for the entire planet. This is modelling the planet as a star, which it quite obviously is not. That's why I said it wasn't directly applicable.
codeprimate 3 months ago
@codeprimate Yes, we can apply S-B "locally". Like all things, the level of precision we want determines what we use and how.
hozelda 3 months ago