Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The 'Global Warming in a Bottle' Experiment, Done Correctly.

Benj · Guest

On Nov 3, 11:45 am, Hank Kroll <HankKr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]There are several million underwater volcanoes belching a million
times more CO2 into the oceans than humans ever will.
[/quote]
Well sure, and power plants and SUVs are a tiny fraction of that
produced by fires and such world wide.

But hey, who gives a shit! We>ve got a great story going here with AGW
and if some deep pockets can be made to PAY for their "sins" well, why
not?

Benj · Guest

On Nov 3, 1:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote]Given those facts, and the stabilizing effect of water on the climate, I>m
not at all convinced that CO2 can have any appreciable effect on surface
temperatures. You may want to read some of my recent posts if you want
more detail.
[/quote]
Bingo!
Say no more!

AGW now dead and buried except for Algore and all those school kids
fooled with "faith-based" physics.

AR- · Guest

Bill Ward wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists Special."
It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the items they
put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4 large
rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and used the
remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar on
one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause greenhouse
warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewire™ network. This episode is probably
also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed by
N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole of
air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat capacites
for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you can
assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that the volume
fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases like CO2,
H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three- and
four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e. infrared
energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular atomic vibrations
which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a result, these gases
(including water as vapor) are heated up more easily than oxygen and
nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This conversion of radiation energy
to kinetic energy by the way is the principal of IR spectroscopy. The
higher energetic ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing excitations of
outer electrons (used for instance in the UV spectroscopy). This
“absorbed” energy can be converted partially in kinetic swinging
energy (resulting in heat production) and partially is emitted again as
radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the gases
by conduction and convection from the black background. Even back in the
1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source and
detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It>s still
true.
[/quote]
Unfortunately I have not seen the experimental set up so I don>t know
the specifics of what was done. However, if as you say, the main effects
were via conduction and convection, one would expect all 4 chambers to
heat up. Given that the chambers would represent three different
specific heats, one would expect them to rise in temperature at
different rates, but nevertheless all should go up in temperature. It
doesn>t sound as if that is what happened. This would seem to be a bit
of an issue for your explanation of what is happening in this experiment.

[quote]
Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.
[/quote]

AR- · Guest

Bill Ward wrote:

[quote]On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:32:48 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:20:37 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special." It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4
large rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and
used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar
on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause greenhouse
warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewire™ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e.
infrared energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular
atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a
result, these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more
easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This
conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the
principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet
radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons (used for
instance in the UV spectroscopy). This “absorbed” energy can be
converted partially in kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat
production) and partially is emitted again as radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the
gases by conduction and convection from the black background.

Unfortunately there is no link to the video so I have only a sketchy
idea of how this experiment was conducted. But if there was a black
background behind the chambers it would generate IR radiation. The
original light source that passed through the chambers would also
(unless it was of a type or specifically designed not to). Thus, IR
should have been involved in this experiment. Though what you maybe
saying, is that the main heating effect (i.e.,much greater than the
contribution from IR) given this experimental set up, was conduction and
convection.

That is correct. Conduction and convection (mass transport) are far
more effective than radiation at ambient temperatures. That>s why most
computers have fans, for example.

Even back in the

1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source and
detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It>s
still true.

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.

You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot be
that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one that>s
portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses to absorb
radiation.

It is difficult (and expensive), because of the need to thermally
isolate the sample gas with IR transparent optics, and the expensive,
cooled IR sensors necessary to detect IR in the 15u band in question.

There>s not much serious dispute about the absorption spectrum of CO2,
it>s the relevance to global warming, in view of the larger effect of
water and its phase changes, at issue. The only effect CO2 could have
is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks from water make even
that unlikely.

Do you have some addition sources you could point me to so that I could
better understand and evaluate these assertions?

This may get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

I haven>t got the link handy, but Tyndall>s 1865(?) book is available on
Google books. He did some of the original work on gas IR absorption.

Then you might see what a new mid-IR instrument would cost. Perkin Elmer
will give you a quote here:

http://las.perkinelmer.com/Catalog/ProductInfoPage.htm?ProductID=L125402A

Are there any assertions in particular that require clarification?

[/quote]
Thanks for the links I have one or two of Tyndall>s articles, but I
don>t' think they go into detail about the instrumentation issues, so
I>ll check these.

But I was more interested in support for your statement that "The only
effect CO2 could have is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks
from water make even that unlikely."
Regards

[quote]
Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly understand
it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear, accurate and
understandable manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be
very suspicious of those who try to convince you that you are so stupid
you can>t understand their explanation.

I have rarely found that to be the case for people trying to explain a
theory.

That>s just their way of discouraging you from asking

questions they can>t answer without exposing their ignorance.

[/quote]

AR- · Guest

Claudius Denk wrote:

[quote]On Oct 31, 1:23 pm, AR-
Ginger.Gr...@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote:

Claudius Denk wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:32 am, AR-
Ginger.Gr...@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote:

Claudius Denk wrote:

On Oct 31, 8:36 am, Bolaleman <hull...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

snip

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

Uh, relevance?

I am assuming that he is presenting an argument that accounts for the
fact that 1) methane is a "global warming gas", that is it absorbs
radiation at a much greater rate than "non-global warming gases", yet 2)
a container of pure methane does not heat up at a higher rate than a
container of just air--that is, because of the contribution of the other
global warming gases in the column of air. I>m assuming that is the
purpose for pointing out the greater ability of some gases to absorb
radiation than others (though I admit, the argument presented also puts
methane in the more readily heated group). I do not know whether the
argument is sound, but if so, it would be a proper way to account for
the equal heating rates (though there is no way to know the truth of
that either seeing chemist does not have the habit of citing sources,
thus there is no difference in his presentation of fact, fiction,
propaganda, and delusion).

I don>t think Bolaleman intended anything but the illusion that he
actually understood any of this.

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that>s the last thing they
want.

Oh that>s simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

and substantiated, for how radiation can and does cause
gasses to rise in temperature.

This thread has described several
mechanisms (convection, conduction, absorption).

Yeah, so?

That>s not the issue
being disputed.

It>s the only issue that matters. And that is why you won>t get an
AGW cultist to discuss it.

I really don>t know what you are trying to say. Seriously. Are you[/quote]
saying that convection, conduction, adn absorption are made up methods
of heat transfer? They don>t exist? They are not understood? What are
you trying to say?

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 10:04 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:37 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On Nov 1, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:46 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:09 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

On Oct 31, 7:44 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that>s the last thing they
want.

Oh that>s simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

it>s a plot to make you waste your time posting here all the time, and
you>ve fallen for it. haha!!

Damn you, 'z'. You have handed the enemy our secret weapon :-)

Brush up on your law. In your position, withholding any pertinent data
can be construed as criminal intent to defraud. Look what happened to
Niffong in the cases against the college guys accused of raping the
stripper. He withheld pertinent data. Was disbarred and convicted of a
crime.

So should I go to the authorities and tell them of your mental
incompetence, or wait quietly and hope they overlook my withholding of
this information?

Good luck in hell, dweeb.

No such place. Like heaven, it>s a figment of distraught imaginings by
primitive peoples, later crafted into a multitude of mammoth scams by
the 'priest class', who prefer not to work and who often like children
in singularly unpleasant ways.

does this mean i don>t get my 72 virgins?
[/quote]
Only when you take holy orders in the PPB (pope>s pedophile brigade)
Ohh...yes. Explode yourself in a public place in Israel is supposed to
work, but that one hasn>t been proved, unlike the first option.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 5:52 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:45:27 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward
bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly
understand it. The burden of explaining a theory in a
clear, accurate and understandable manner lies with the
proponents, not the skeptics. Be very suspicious of those
who try to convince you that you are so stupid you can>t
understand their explanation. That>s just their way of
discouraging you from asking questions they can>t answer
without exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you.
the "negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you
are treading off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about
xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes,
ayatollahs and related shamans have pulled the wool over the
eyes of the gullible, so that a self-identified, "priest
class" don>t have to work, and can have their wicked way with
children. He appears to support *their* existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading
skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh
about walking on water, end-times, making the dead come alive,
rapturous ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic
you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups for
that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to
bizarre propositions like " a person once walked on water" " dead
people can spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m thinking
more accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave judgment on his
mind reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but you
opted for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is outstanding,
though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW in
alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism of the
nay sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the science,

Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the AGW
hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a matter of
faith,

Bilbo dissembling again. He>s good at that, even though hopeless as a
sceptic.

which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the characteristics
of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.

Cult religion? Nice redundancy in terms there

I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much as
why they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with religion
at some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism.

Just because I>m sceptical about uncritical belief in a deity
doesn>t mean I adopt its equally uncritical antithesis. Atheism is
just that, so I>m not an atheist, even though I reject all the
"revealed" tosh from the bible, torah, koran, etc., etc.

John demonstrates his inability to distinguish the difference between
the domains of science and religion.
[/quote]
I see you are dissembling again. I distinguished between them so
clearly only an idiot would not see it. And I don>t believe for one
moment you are an idiot. However, in case you missed it - religion is
always bollocks; science is sometimes so, but temporarily.

[quote]Which is OK by me, as long as he doesn>t demand everyone
else join him in his delusions of omniscience.
[/quote]
Now an appeal to pathos...ahahaha. Whatever next ?

[quote]Science is not a religion. When people resort to appeals to authority
rather than evidence-based reasoning, it indicates they believe in things
they don>t understand and can>t explain. That "discussion" belongs in a
religious newsgroup, not here. In science, we explain things, we don>t
decree them.
[/quote]
Err...yes. But nobody suggested that science IS a religion. My point
was the opposite in fact - that religious propositions can often be
couched in a form of a scientific hypothesis and tackled in exactly
that way.

Here are websites that excel in doing just that:

http://www.randi.org/
http://www.notori.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/

Do let me know if you>d like more. Lots of people out there who see
very clearly that religion is bollocks.

[quote]But that>s still off topic.

Ohh... Everybody here understands why you won>t answer simple yes/no
questions. They also now know what the answers are. Attempted lying by
omission is still attempted lying, by the way.

John sounds desperate here. Apparently he also suffers from the delusion
that people must obey him.
[/quote]
I didn>t demand you answer, as far as I can see. What are you reading
into my fairly straightforward question that makes you think that? Or
is this more pathos?

[quote]or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100% topical
on these groups.

John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW has
been shaken.

The only faith I have in anything at all, is in those aspects of human
nature that you display. People can always be relied upon to be devious
when the chips are down.

Again John demonstrates his projection problem. Maybe a 12 step program
would help.
[/quote]
See what I mean about "devious when the chips are down"? I>ve got your
number, Bilbo. Wriggle as much as you like, but my hook always carries
a barb to prevent such an escape.

[quote]AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such, it is
up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that includes those
who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a rationale for future global
actions.

On that we agree.

So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly, but that doesn>t
mean they won>t succeed tomorrow.

Skeptics succeed by ensuring the facts are well discussed. The AGWers
have been trying to stifle heresy for as long as I>ve been looking at the
issue. That>s primarily why I became interested. When I see a lucid,
credible explanation without all the handwaving and obfuscation, I might
be less skeptical.
[/quote]
Then you are looking in the wrong place. The library of a major
university is where you should be spending your time.

[quote]The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of some
kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and for all,
Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture", and think of me
enjoying wine, women and song in the company of Beelzebub as you
float heavenwards, along with those thermals you always wax lyrical
about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple
yes/no test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene on
your behalf so you can stay on the ground when those "end times"
come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs
and then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person
spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here and
that you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m
sceptical about this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to
agree with me on this.

No answer, eh? :-((

The answer was: "wrong newsgroups". Pay attention.
[/quote]
You pay attention. It was a multiple choice question of just two
selections. Do I need to add the boxes so you can tick one or the
other? The choice is A./ Yes B./ No.

Are you that embarrassed about your religion you are not prepared to
defend what you think is really true? In this case perhaps you need to
do some heavy thinking about it. You could start with:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Carefully read Feynman>s second paragraph here.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 7:47 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 1:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Given those facts, and the stabilizing effect of water on the climate, I>m
not at all convinced that CO2 can have any appreciable effect on surface
temperatures. You may want to read some of my recent posts if you want
more detail.

Bingo!
Say no more!

AGW now dead and buried except for Algore and all those school kids
fooled with "faith-based" physics.
[/quote]
What a bit of luck. Now you can concentrate on the really important
science of discovering witches and burning them at the stake.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 7:40 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW in
alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism of the
nay sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the science,
or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100% topical
on these groups.

Duh. If all the AGW politicos are saying that CO2 is the "cause" of
global warming then sure we are questioning that assertion. And it
SURE ain>t science! The fundamentals of science say that assertion is
bunk. Thus you and your shill pals with the political agenda are the
ones ignoring the "fundamentals of science". We are not skeptical of
science but skeptical of your bogus assertions. Tis YOU who is
denying the fundamentals of science and THAT is denialism of the most
frightful kind!
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah, so you say... Luckily science is above such inane
ramblings as you offer up here.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 7:33 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 2:13 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:00 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:[/quote]

<snip by Benj>

<restored important context here:

[quote]Here>s another link:
http://www.alphasense.com/alphasense_sensors/ndir_sensors.html
CO2 absorbs IR. That fact does not mean CO2 is causing >>>global warming.
[/quote]
end of restoration>

[quote]Ummm? Does not a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere lead
to greater probability of an IR photon in the crucial waveband being
captured, then? Because if it does, then all else being equal (and I
know it isn>t, but...) the egress of energy the planet continually
receives from the sun, and which it somehow has to shuck off, is going
to get slowed up by it.

Ummm. In politics quantity doesn>t matter. Example: one puts in place
conditions for genocide of millions based upon argument "if one child
is saved it>s worth it". In science quantity matters. Hence the
question is not one of if CO2 IR bands actually absorb some energy,
the question is if CO2 can possibly have ENOUGH of an effect to create
"global warming". Hint: it can>t.
[/quote]
Try looking at the Venus atmosphere. Put quite simply, CO2 does it.

Second hint: If CO2 cannot have
[quote]enough of an effect to create "global warming" then the term
"anthropogenic" [means man-caused] is nothing but a blatant lie for
political purposes.
[/quote]
Luckily CO2 does trap heat in the atmosphere. Saves the politicos from
getting egg on their faces.

Third hint: If AGW is a lie then teaching such
[quote]crap to school children as "truth" is blatant propaganda and is
shameful.
[/quote]
Luckily only religion is taught as truth to school children. Science
is taught as a way of discovering how religious truth is bollocks.
Obviously better science teaching is needed in many places.

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 7:23 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 4:25 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

Uh, the oceans are gaining CO2. The CO2 in the air is coming from
fossil fuel burning, as its isotopic ratios prove.

Uh Huh. In defiance of the laws of physics and the relationship of
temperature to dissolved gases. Real "scientific" there Lloyd.

It is a shameful thing when doofuses of the highest order pretend to
be scientists here.

OK, Mr. Scientist. Does warm water hold more or less CO2 than cold
water? You may refer to that half empty coke bottle up your ass for
help answering. Shameful!
[/quote]
Ahahaha... so you believe there is a contradiction between warmer
oceans that are also holding more CO2 than before and the reduced
solubility of gases with increase in temperature. You brainless twit.

I expect Lloyd would>ve answered, but for the fact that he is
doubtless ROFL over your post and can>t get to the computer.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:45:27 -0800, John M. wrote:

[quote]On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward
bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly
understand it. The burden of explaining a theory in a
clear, accurate and understandable manner lies with the
proponents, not the skeptics. Be very suspicious of those
who try to convince you that you are so stupid you can>t
understand their explanation. That>s just their way of
discouraging you from asking questions they can>t answer
without exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you.
the "negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you
are treading off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about
xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes,
ayatollahs and related shamans have pulled the wool over the
eyes of the gullible, so that a self-identified, "priest
class" don>t have to work, and can have their wicked way with
children. He appears to support *their* existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading
skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh
about walking on water, end-times, making the dead come alive,
rapturous ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic
you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups for
that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to
bizarre propositions like " a person once walked on water" " dead
people can spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m thinking
more accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave judgment on his
mind reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but you
opted for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is outstanding,
though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW in
alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism of the
nay sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the science,

Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the AGW
hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a matter of
faith,

Bilbo dissembling again. He>s good at that, even though hopeless as a
sceptic.

which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the characteristics
of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.

Cult religion? Nice redundancy in terms there

I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much as
why they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with religion
at some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism.

Just because I>m sceptical about uncritical belief in a deity doesn>t mean
I adopt its equally uncritical antithesis. Atheism is just that, so I>m
not an atheist, even though I reject all the "revealed" tosh from the
bible, torah, koran, etc., etc.
[/quote]
John demonstrates his inability to distinguish the difference between
the domains of science and religion. Which is OK by me, as long as he
doesn>t demand everyone else join him in his delusions of omniscience.

Science is not a religion. When people resort to appeals to authority
rather than evidence-based reasoning, it indicates they believe in things
they don>t understand and can>t explain. That "discussion" belongs in a
religious newsgroup, not here. In science, we explain things, we don>t
decree them.

[quote]But that>s still off topic.

Ohh... Everybody here understands why you won>t answer simple yes/no
questions. They also now know what the answers are. Attempted lying by
omission is still attempted lying, by the way.
[/quote]
John sounds desperate here. Apparently he also suffers from the delusion
that people must obey him.

[quote]or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100% topical
on these groups.

John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW has
been shaken.

The only faith I have in anything at all, is in those aspects of human
nature that you display. People can always be relied upon to be devious
when the chips are down.
[/quote]
Again John demonstrates his projection problem. Maybe a 12 step program
would help.

[quote]AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such, it is
up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that includes those
who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a rationale for future global
actions.
[/quote]
On that we agree.

[quote]So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly, but that doesn>t
mean they won>t succeed tomorrow.
[/quote]
Skeptics succeed by ensuring the facts are well discussed. The AGWers
have been trying to stifle heresy for as long as I>ve been looking at the
issue. That>s primarily why I became interested. When I see a lucid,
credible explanation without all the handwaving and obfuscation, I might
be less skeptical.

[quote]The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of some
kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and for all,
Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture", and think of me
enjoying wine, women and song in the company of Beelzebub as you
float heavenwards, along with those thermals you always wax lyrical
about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple
yes/no test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene on
your behalf so you can stay on the ground when those "end times"
come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs
and then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person
spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here and
that you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m
sceptical about this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to
agree with me on this.

No answer, eh? :-((
[/quote]
The answer was: "wrong newsgroups". Pay attention.

Ouroboros_Rex · Guest

kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 7:18 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:12 pm, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
[ . . . ]

who are you going to believe, your lying eyes,
or some kook on the internet who can>t make
an experiment work and figures that everybody
who can is therefore lying?

Z, you have summed up this issue succinctly.

Thank you!

But only to dweebs who wish to simplify their understanding completely
to terms of 'temperature' 'heat'. And then reach a conclusion with
their lazy and dishonest minds, so they can get beyond the science and
onto the satiation of the mental disease to get their freaky little
puds up everyones ass.

THE DEBATE IS JUST BEGINNING

If you do not understand the concepts of heat capacity and heat
energy, your eyes tell you nothing valuable from the hoax exhibit. In
case you assholes who wish to return to pre-modern conditions didn>t
know, part of the renaissance was the development of the scientific
method.

At no point here, poopycock, do you or z-tarded refer anything that in
any way resembles the scientific method.
Just the rhetoric and literature from a hostile religion formed from
ill developed mentalities who enjoy very much their pretense at
BELIEVING THEIR OWN LIES.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

KD
[/quote]
k00k-a-d00dle-d0000! lol

Bill Ward · Guest

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:50:26 -0500, AR- wrote:

[quote]

Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists Special."
It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the items they
put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4 large
rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and used the
remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar on
one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause greenhouse
warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewire™ network. This episode is probably
also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole of
air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you can
assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that the volume
fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases like
CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e. infrared
energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular atomic
vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a result,
these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more easily than
oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This conversion of
radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the principal of IR
spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing
excitations of outer electrons (used for instance in the UV
spectroscopy). This “absorbed” energy can be converted partially in
kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat production) and partially is
emitted again as radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the gases
by conduction and convection from the black background. Even back in
the 1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source
and detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It>s
still true.

Unfortunately I have not seen the experimental set up so I don>t know the
specifics of what was done. However, if as you say, the main effects were
via conduction and convection, one would expect all 4 chambers to heat up.
Given that the chambers would represent three different specific heats,
one would expect them to rise in temperature at different rates, but
nevertheless all should go up in temperature. It doesn>t sound as if that
is what happened. This would seem to be a bit of an issue for your
explanation of what is happening in this experiment.
[/quote]
My explanation is based on simple physics. The 15u CO2 absorption band
at issue in AGW theory represents a temperature far below zero, and
would not be detectable by room temperature thermometers.

The 19th century work by Tyndall shows the sample gas must be thermally
isolated from both the radiation source and detectors. If not, the
conduction and convection of sensible heat mask the actual IR absorption
properties.

Tom showed the observed behavior of the demonstration he tested was
entirely consistent with differing heat loss from the sample gases to the
environment via thermal conductivity. The change in behavior when he
insulated the containers confirmed it. IIRC, all the chambers did heat,
but at differing rates depending on thermal conductivity losses. I won>t
go into the details here, but it>s pretty clear if you understand the
physics involved.

[quote]Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.

[/quote]

Bill Ward · Guest

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:58:21 -0500, AR- wrote:

[quote]

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:32:48 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:20:37 -0400, AR- wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:

On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special." It aired on 4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. They made 4
large rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and
used the remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear
mylar on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than
the control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewire™ network. This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat
absorbed by N2 + ...
= xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that
the volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However,
gases like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal
gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are
three- and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom,
i.e. infrared energy can be converted more easily into
intra-molecular atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or
heat energy. As a result, these gases (including water as vapor) are
heated up more easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR)
radiation. This conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by
the way is the principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic
ultraviolet radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons
(used for instance in the UV spectroscopy). This “absorbed”
energy can be converted partially in kinetic swinging energy
(resulting in heat production) and partially is emitted again as
radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. The experiment heated the
gases by conduction and convection from the black background.

Unfortunately there is no link to the video so I have only a sketchy
idea of how this experiment was conducted. But if there was a black
background behind the chambers it would generate IR radiation. The
original light source that passed through the chambers would also
(unless it was of a type or specifically designed not to). Thus, IR
should have been involved in this experiment. Though what you maybe
saying, is that the main heating effect (i.e.,much greater than the
contribution from IR) given this experimental set up, was conduction
and convection.

That is correct. Conduction and convection (mass transport) are far
more effective than radiation at ambient temperatures. That>s why most
computers have fans, for example.

Even back in the

1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep the radiation source and
detectors completely thermally isolated from the sample gas. It>s
still true.

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children
as propaganda.

You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot
be that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one
that>s portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses
to absorb radiation.

It is difficult (and expensive), because of the need to thermally
isolate the sample gas with IR transparent optics, and the expensive,
cooled IR sensors necessary to detect IR in the 15u band in question.

There>s not much serious dispute about the absorption spectrum of CO2,
it>s the relevance to global warming, in view of the larger effect of
water and its phase changes, at issue. The only effect CO2 could have
is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks from water make even
that unlikely.

Do you have some addition sources you could point me to so that I could
better understand and evaluate these assertions?

This may get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

I haven>t got the link handy, but Tyndall>s 1865(?) book is available on
Google books. He did some of the original work on gas IR absorption.

Then you might see what a new mid-IR instrument would cost. Perkin
Elmer will give you a quote here:

http://las.perkinelmer.com/Catalog/ProductInfoPage.htm?ProductID=L125402A

Are there any assertions in particular that require clarification?

Thanks for the links I have one or two of Tyndall>s articles, but I don>t'
think they go into detail about the instrumentation issues, so I>ll check
these.

But I was more interested in support for your statement that "The only
effect CO2 could have is above the troposphere, and negative feedbacks
from water make even that unlikely."
Regards
[/quote]
The troposphere is defined by the fact it>s mixed well enough to maintain
a nearly adiabatic lapse rate. The resulting mass transfer of sensible
heat plus the latent heat of water vapor completely overwhelms radiative
transfer, as you can see by calculating the power density of a rising
column of humid air. Radiation from the surface maxes out at around
500W/m^2, while a good thermal can be 200kW/m^2. Therefore in the
troposphere, 380ppmv of CO2 can have little effect with its assumed
forcing of 1.5W/m^2.

The effective radiating T of the Earth is about 255K, which corresponds to
altitudes near the top of the troposphere. That is above most of the
atmosphere, so less than half of the CO2 is above that level. In
addition, the 15u absorption band at issue is centered well below the
255K emission peak, leaving most of the radiation out of its reach.

Given those facts, and the stabilizing effect of water on the climate, I>m
not at all convinced that CO2 can have any appreciable effect on surface
temperatures. You may want to read some of my recent posts if you want
more detail.

Thanks for your interest.

<snip dead text>


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> The Big Environment Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7