CO2 experiment

Experiment showing the absoption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide. From the BBC 2 program "Earth: The Climate Wars" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9 )

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• CO2
• experiment
• climate change
• greenhouse gas

[malshy]

This is not a good day for Anthropogenic Global Warming Fanatics. There is hardly a wind generator turning in England. We have record low temperatures and “The Global Warming Policy Foundation” is pushing its message home.

Google: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

[AndrianGA]

@malshy

You said=======

Finally the scientific proof

========

LOL

So you made a decision, hoped that it's true, and "Finally" you have the evidence LOL

Do you know what following the evidence to wherever it leads, is?

Your understanding of science is "lead the evidence" not follow

lol

[malshy]

See: Electromagnetic absorption by water on Wikipedia

"Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm"

[WaxItYourself]

@malshy CO2 is not an aerosol so it does not 'lower radiation from the Sun' and heat can't be dissipated into space via convection. The atmosphere warms from the ground up. The black body curve for the Earth starts at about 4 microns while for the Sun it ends at 4 microns. This is the point at which shortwave radiation becomes longwave radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation dependent on their resonance frequencies. You are wrong.

[malshy]

The BBC explanation is wrong. Simply put;

CO2 helps to lower radiation from the Sun. Any heat taken up by the atmosphere is dissipated away into space via convection and radiation.

[Halcyon3k]

@malshy /facepalm

[malshy]

CO2 cools the Earth. Period

Finally the scientific proof;

G. V. CHILINGAR, L. F. KHILYUK, and O. G. SOROKHTIN, 2008, Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission, Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1–9, 2008 ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online DOI: 10.1080/15567030701568727

[solmyrgarde]

This is a demonstration of physical fact: CO2 absorbing infrared light. Deciding what this means for the atmosphere takes more scrutiny, but this is a piece of the puzzle.

[JustNCredible71]

Wow, I'm looking at comments here. I thought malshy was rather uninformed. Can I say science retarded for many of them? Because honestly I feel that's the best description of them.

[JustNCredible71]

@malshy You are so wrong. It doesn't demonstrate that at all. The sun radiates to the Earth in UV, the candle isn't radiating as the Sun would. CO2 traps IR radiation. Please learn a little before making such comments.

[malshy]

This video actually demonstrates that CO2 must aid the cooling of the Earth

Google:

Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth

[hozelda]

@Navila1 Google model e. You should be able to find a source code download for a model used by giss. I took a look some weeks back and it was laden with Fortran. There is no problem using Fortran. Fortran was designed for this kind of programming. Newer models might use something else, I don't know.

I hope to see a fork of this source base that is maintained in a fashion more amenable to contributions from the public.

[fascistcat]

@Navila1 I concur. These non-applied sciences are dependent on government funding and studies (Pew et al.) show that these fields are overrun with Leftist hacks.

There are no heavier-than-air flight deniers, even though it's crazy that a 200 ton plane can get off the ground. It's counter-intuitive, but we see millions of successful demonstrations annually. Not just models and appeals to authority, but verifiable testing.

[Navila1]

@hozelda I would be shocked if they were using fortran so out dated. Yes, i would be interested in seeing what assumptions were made in the use of such modeling if it even exists and were open to the public. Though no comprehensive model even exists looking at the beginning patchwork would still be interesting though far from anything conclusive.

[hozelda]

@Navila1 BTW, I agree that models can be fudged. So what are you doing about it besides trying foolishly to pretend (are you pretending?) that the greenhouse effect is not real and carbon dioxide does not contribute to warming our atmosphere? If you know what you were talking about, you would be there looking over lines of Fortran code to see where the climate models fail.

I'm still waiting for you to turn your talking nonsense into actual math.

[hozelda]

@Navila1 Every single thing created in technology is based on approximations. You won't be able to find an exception.

Most climate scientists' job do not depend on the existence of global warming, but I get the feeling your job exists by bad-mouthing climate science.

[hozelda]

@Navila1 What are you talking about? Every use of mathematics to a real world problem is modeling and approximations. The planet surface is partitioned into a number of sections and each section is solved in approximate fashion with some sections using different techniques than others. How do you think weather forecasting is done?

[Navila1]

@fascistcat The fact is, our atmosphere is impossible to model using exact mathematics because of the amorphous nature of clouds prevents it. Those results must be approximated using empirical methods which can vary greatly and are easy to fudge for anyone who wants to choose an outcome for their model. Climate science guys jobs depend on existence of Global warming, their job security depends on having results that show warming- not the truth.

[Navila1]

@hozelda That statement is 100 percent bullshit only a person who doesn't know math or physics would say that. That is what happens when a uneducated phony tries to pretend to know stuff, he isn't even educated enough to fake it. To determine the general solution to the physical relationship you must be able to represent the relationship in a continuum this can not be done with our atmosphere so such solutions are not possible. Approximation methods must be used which are highly debatable.

[hozelda]

@fascistcat Good luck with your experiments. You may want to try radiation experiments afterward to see if you can come up with MRI [that was a joke].

If you get a chance post back here a link to your write-up of the experiment and conclusions when you get it done.

[fascistcat]

@hozelda As I mentioned, I am now a 'Greenhouse Effect' denier, or at least 'skeptic.' This puts me one level below a GW-denier and two steps from an AGW-denier. Until I have the time for some experiments that I'm contemplating, I'll bow out if discussing my reasoning.

On the bigger issue, the theoreticians have proven themselves untrustworthy and their conspiratorial behavior is Legion. Note the lack of any debate over applied-sciences vs. the Gov't funded theories.

[hozelda]

@fascistcat I sure hope you don't expect to try and predict (within error bounds) the global average surface temperature of the earth say 100 years into the future by not using computers to solve the time-dependent partial differential equations that define the physical relationships. Many experiments have been carried out and scientists have gained confidence in certain math and physics modelling. From those models they try to make new predictions.

[hozelda]

@fascistcat google g6 climateclash and read the piece by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. It's supposed to be a not too technical description of some of the radiation activity that scientists have accepted takes place in our atmosphere. It's not too complex if you have some science background as I believe you do.

Can you tell me what part of the greenhouse effect and what part of skepticalscience website you saw and did not think was accurate?

[fascistcat]

@hozelda I checked out the 'skepticalscience' site and found it unremarkable. I've grown tired of the theoretical mathematicians bastardizing all of the non-applied sciences. I want to see laboratory experiments instead of computer models.

I am no longer convinced that the so-called 'greenhouse effect' even exists. The more I look into it, the more absurd it becomes.

[Navila1]

@hozelda You should have realized and accepted your limitations sooner. You attempted to talk about a subject well beyond your level of education which is plain foolish. The system involved in determining the earths temperature is extremely complex an entire book could not describe it with complete accuracy. If you understood how systems worked you would realize any single part's (like co2) results are meaningless without context of knowing the entire rest of the system.