Remember me
▼ Content

I have done the correct experiment and concluded CO2 does not affect temperature


I have done the correct experiment and concluded CO2 does not affect temperature03-02-2017 19:27
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
I put 2 tanks. In tank 1 it is 412 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. In tank 2 it is 519 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. Both tanks are otherwise identical. Both tanks are shown by a 60 W light placed at 2 meters distance.

In order to obtain 519 ppm CO2 in tank 2, I put a rotting thing in there and had bacteria convert O2 into CO2 over a period of several days since the experiment started. This is to ensure the air pressure is the same in both tanks because air pressure affects temperature.

Each tank has its own thermometer accurate to 0.1 C and both tanks read 22.6 C after both tanks reached equilibrium after several days since the experiment started.

In conclusion, if the Earth's CO2 rises to 519 ppm from the current 407 ppm, there would be no change to temperature. I conclude that CO2 follows temperature and temperature does not follow CO2.
03-02-2017 19:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Did you catch a disease off of the "Rotting thing" try eating the "Rotting thing".
03-02-2017 19:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.

Edited on 03-02-2017 19:35
03-02-2017 19:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
spot wrote:
Did you catch a disease off of the "Rotting thing" try eating the "Rotting thing".


The tanks are completely airtight so it is safe.
Edited on 03-02-2017 19:36
03-02-2017 19:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.


You have got something right in your life for once.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-02-2017 19:38
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.
03-02-2017 19:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:

CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


You spent a few hundred bucks to prove a point on the internet to about five people you don't know?

Can you post a picture of your "lab" with a newspaper with today's date with it.

Don't put any personal identifying information we wouldn't want that. I just want to make sure you are actually performing these tests and not talking nonsense.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-02-2017 19:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I put 2 tanks. In tank 1 it is 412 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. In tank 2 it is 519 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. Both tanks are otherwise identical. Both tanks are shown by a 60 W light placed at 2 meters distance.

In order to obtain 519 ppm CO2 in tank 2, I put a rotting thing in there and had bacteria convert O2 into CO2 over a period of several days since the experiment started. This is to ensure the air pressure is the same in both tanks because air pressure affects temperature.

Each tank has its own thermometer accurate to 0.1 C and both tanks read 22.6 C after both tanks reached equilibrium after several days since the experiment started.

In conclusion, if the Earth's CO2 rises to 519 ppm from the current 407 ppm, there would be no change to temperature. I conclude that CO2 follows temperature and temperature does not follow CO2.

RIP Thing 1 or Thing 2


03-02-2017 19:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I put 2 tanks. In tank 1 it is 412 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. In tank 2 it is 519 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. Both tanks are otherwise identical. Both tanks are shown by a 60 W light placed at 2 meters distance.

In order to obtain 519 ppm CO2 in tank 2, I put a rotting thing in there and had bacteria convert O2 into CO2 over a period of several days since the experiment started. This is to ensure the air pressure is the same in both tanks because air pressure affects temperature.

Each tank has its own thermometer accurate to 0.1 C and both tanks read 22.6 C after both tanks reached equilibrium after several days since the experiment started.

In conclusion, if the Earth's CO2 rises to 519 ppm from the current 407 ppm, there would be no change to temperature. I conclude that CO2 follows temperature and temperature does not follow CO2.


You have completed an experiment with far greater accuracy than many others who have attempted to reproduce the claims of the far far left.

You have gotten the same results as others. You would find that if you increased the heat source that the bottle with less CO2 would actually get hotter since O2 has a higher latent heat content.

You will be attacked as you see by people who are actually totally ignorant of scientific method and as far as I can make out haven't any scientific education above grade school. Please do not be insulted by these people any more than you would be by a smelly dog rubbing up against you leg.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
03-02-2017 20:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.

Indeed. It's totally implausible that air in an indoor environment with breathing human beings around could have a CO2 content as low as 412 ppm.
03-02-2017 21:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.
03-02-2017 21:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.

Indeed. It's totally implausible that air in an indoor environment with breathing human beings around could have a CO2 content as low as 412 ppm.


Is it just me or do you not read well? He said that he directly measured the CO2 to ppm. So exactly why are you telling the man who ran the experiment that he measured incorrectly?
03-02-2017 21:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.


Are you from some other country? CO2 detectors are required by law in every home just like smoke detectors. This makes the technology quite inexpensive.

http://www.e-inst.com/iaq/indoor-air-quality-monitors?gclid=CjwKEAiA8dDEBRDf19yI97eO0UsSJAAY_yCSXmkrQNQ77lSXLRho9sCqaKJ94aJo4uKY-xncJwsYHRoCimvw_wcB
03-02-2017 21:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.

Indeed. It's totally implausible that air in an indoor environment with breathing human beings around could have a CO2 content as low as 412 ppm.


Is it just me or do you not read well? He said that he directly measured the CO2 to ppm. So exactly why are you telling the man who ran the experiment that he measured incorrectly?


I think what he is implying is that what he said has no relation to what he actually did. Like someone being a scientist and combat veteran who does not seem to know the first thing about spectroscopy.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-02-2017 21:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]spot wrote: I think what he is implying is that what he said has no relation to what he actually did. Like someone being a scientist and combat veteran who does not seem to know the first thing about spectroscopy.


Well since you know so much about spectroscopy why haven't you corrected me? Or is it your practice (which is obvious) to whine about anything that isn't positive to your political agenda?
03-02-2017 21:43
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Why correct you all you have to do is look in a textbook?

You are not the first person to claim the energy somehow passes though the lines, practical experimentation that has been done proves it wrong.

If people believe that you that's their problem. Its not like anyone reads this so your not doing any harm
03-02-2017 22:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Why correct you all you have to do is look in a textbook?

You are not the first person to claim the energy somehow passes though the lines, practical experimentation that has been done proves it wrong.

If people believe that you that's their problem. Its not like anyone reads this so your not doing any harm


If you cannot even make sense trying to make sense please don't bother to criticize anything. You just make yourself look even worse with each posting.

Now let me repeat - what the hell do you THINK you're talking about? "passing through the lines"? Is English your second language? What the hell is your first - Gibberish?
03-02-2017 22:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.


Are you from some other country? CO2 detectors are required by law in every home just like smoke detectors.

It is CO detectors that are often required by law, not CO2 detectors, you utter fool. Human beings are quite capable of detecting high CO2 levels themselves; it's CO that is the silent killer.
Edited on 03-02-2017 22:20
03-02-2017 22:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.


Are you from some other country? CO2 detectors are required by law in every home just like smoke detectors.

It is CO detectors that are often required by law, not CO2 detectors, you utter fool. Human beings are quite capable of detecting high CO2 levels themselves; it's CO that is the silent killer.


My error - but the technology is exactly the same. One day when we meet I beg you to talk to me like that in person.
03-02-2017 22:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.


Are you from some other country? CO2 detectors are required by law in every home just like smoke detectors.

It is CO detectors that are often required by law, not CO2 detectors, you utter fool. Human beings are quite capable of detecting high CO2 levels themselves; it's CO that is the silent killer.


My error - but the technology is exactly the same. One day when we meet I beg you to talk to me like that in person.

I'll talk to you how I like, you lying sack of shit.
03-02-2017 22:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.


Are you from some other country? CO2 detectors are required by law in every home just like smoke detectors.

It is CO detectors that are often required by law, not CO2 detectors, you utter fool. Human beings are quite capable of detecting high CO2 levels themselves; it's CO that is the silent killer.


My error - but the technology is exactly the same. One day when we meet I beg you to talk to me like that in person.

I'll talk to you how I like, you lying sack of shit.


Then by all means come down to Oakland and try it. You'll like it I'm sure. It will give you a feeling of accomplishment. Or maybe the feeling it will give you won't exactly be accomplishment.

When you are so F'ing stupid it would never occur to you to go to Amazon and look up CO2 detectors and quantifiers you do give even people who are trying to support you a good laugh.
03-02-2017 23:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I put 2 tanks. In tank 1 it is 412 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. In tank 2 it is 519 ppm CO2 as measured by a CO2 meter placed in it. Both tanks are otherwise identical. Both tanks are shown by a 60 W light placed at 2 meters distance.

In order to obtain 519 ppm CO2 in tank 2, I put a rotting thing in there and had bacteria convert O2 into CO2 over a period of several days since the experiment started. This is to ensure the air pressure is the same in both tanks because air pressure affects temperature.

Each tank has its own thermometer accurate to 0.1 C and both tanks read 22.6 C after both tanks reached equilibrium after several days since the experiment started.

In conclusion, if the Earth's CO2 rises to 519 ppm from the current 407 ppm, there would be no change to temperature. I conclude that CO2 follows temperature and temperature does not follow CO2.


Chen - have you noticed that the global warmies couldn't wait to change your subject from fact to their own fictions?
Edited on 03-02-2017 23:01
03-02-2017 23:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You have no clue as to what you are taling about.

How did you measure the CO2 levels in each tank?

I bet they were both well above 600ppm.


CO2 measuring instruments. Only a few hundred bucks.


Link to these.

How did you pwoer them?

How did you read them?

I don't believe you.


Are you from some other country? CO2 detectors are required by law in every home just like smoke detectors.

It is CO detectors that are often required by law, not CO2 detectors, you utter fool. Human beings are quite capable of detecting high CO2 levels themselves; it's CO that is the silent killer.


My error - but the technology is exactly the same. One day when we meet I beg you to talk to me like that in person.

I'll talk to you how I like, you lying sack of shit.


Then by all means come down to Oakland and try it. You'll like it I'm sure. It will give you a feeling of accomplishment. Or maybe the feeling it will give you won't exactly be accomplishment.

When you are so F'ing stupid it would never occur to you to go to Amazon and look up CO2 detectors and quantifiers you do give even people who are trying to support you a good laugh.

You seem to have reading difficulties. I never claimed that CO2 sensors aren't available, just that they're not required by law in every home, as you claimed.
04-02-2017 00:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

You seem to have reading difficulties. I never claimed that CO2 sensors aren't available, just that they're not required by law in every home, as you claimed.[/quote]

I "WAS" wondering why you said "Indeed. It's totally implausible that air in an indoor environment with breathing human beings around could have a CO2 content as low as 412 ppm." even after Chen said that he had measured it.

But your entire line was disbelief of ANYTHING that suggests that AGW through CO2 growth means little to nothing.

Are you going to crab-walk out from under your ignorant assertions?
04-02-2017 04:53
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
A CO2 meter is really cheap these days.

http://www.co2meter.com/
04-02-2017 10:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
But your entire line was disbelief of ANYTHING that suggests that AGW through CO2 growth means little to nothing.

I only believe things for which there is concrete evidence and which are not contradicted by other evidence. You have come out with a string of unsubstantiated assertions that are easily shown to be false with just a little research. So why should I believe anything you say?

You'd have to be extremely gullible to believe that Tai Hai Chen performed his supposed experiment or that such an experiment could give meaningful results. Wouldn't a rotting "thing" give off gases other than CO2, for example? And why would the pressure remain constant inside a sealed chamber in which gases are being produced by decomposition? And doesn't the process of decomposition itself produce heat? Etc, etc.
05-02-2017 16:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But your entire line was disbelief of ANYTHING that suggests that AGW through CO2 growth means little to nothing.

I only believe things for which there is concrete evidence and which are not contradicted by other evidence. You have come out with a string of unsubstantiated assertions that are easily shown to be false with just a little research. So why should I believe anything you say?

You'd have to be extremely gullible to believe that Tai Hai Chen performed his supposed experiment or that such an experiment could give meaningful results. Wouldn't a rotting "thing" give off gases other than CO2, for example? And why would the pressure remain constant inside a sealed chamber in which gases are being produced by decomposition? And doesn't the process of decomposition itself produce heat? Etc, etc.


I don't deny more CO2 or other gases could have a small effect on temperature.

However, as my experiment shows, there was no difference in temperature at the decimal value when CO2 increased from 412 ppm to 519 ppm. Which means, the increase in temperature would have been small enough to be unnoticeable by people.

This experiment concludes that if Earth's CO2 increases to 519 ppm, temperature would not change from today's temperature at the decimal level.
05-02-2017 16:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But your entire line was disbelief of ANYTHING that suggests that AGW through CO2 growth means little to nothing.

I only believe things for which there is concrete evidence and which are not contradicted by other evidence. You have come out with a string of unsubstantiated assertions that are easily shown to be false with just a little research. So why should I believe anything you say?

You'd have to be extremely gullible to believe that Tai Hai Chen performed his supposed experiment or that such an experiment could give meaningful results. Wouldn't a rotting "thing" give off gases other than CO2, for example? And why would the pressure remain constant inside a sealed chamber in which gases are being produced by decomposition? And doesn't the process of decomposition itself produce heat? Etc, etc.


I don't deny more CO2 or other gases could have a small effect on temperature.

However, as my experiment shows, there was no difference in temperature at the decimal value when CO2 increased from 412 ppm to 519 ppm. Which means, the increase in temperature would have been small enough to be unnoticeable by people.

This experiment concludes that if Earth's CO2 increases to 519 ppm, temperature would not change from today's temperature at the decimal level.

Could you post a photo of your experimental setup, and give details about the heat sources, sensors and materials used (including the nature of the rotting "thing").
05-02-2017 17:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But your entire line was disbelief of ANYTHING that suggests that AGW through CO2 growth means little to nothing.

I only believe things for which there is concrete evidence and which are not contradicted by other evidence. You have come out with a string of unsubstantiated assertions that are easily shown to be false with just a little research. So why should I believe anything you say?

You'd have to be extremely gullible to believe that Tai Hai Chen performed his supposed experiment or that such an experiment could give meaningful results. Wouldn't a rotting "thing" give off gases other than CO2, for example? And why would the pressure remain constant inside a sealed chamber in which gases are being produced by decomposition? And doesn't the process of decomposition itself produce heat? Etc, etc.


I don't deny more CO2 or other gases could have a small effect on temperature.

However, as my experiment shows, there was no difference in temperature at the decimal value when CO2 increased from 412 ppm to 519 ppm. Which means, the increase in temperature would have been small enough to be unnoticeable by people.

This experiment concludes that if Earth's CO2 increases to 519 ppm, temperature would not change from today's temperature at the decimal level.


In what way did you test the absorption of IR by CO2?

How did you measure the CO2 level in each tank with just the one sensor?

How did you measure the levels without opening the tanks?

How did you know that there were no other gases involved which negated the result?
06-02-2017 20:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
But your entire line was disbelief of ANYTHING that suggests that AGW through CO2 growth means little to nothing.

I only believe things for which there is concrete evidence and which are not contradicted by other evidence. You have come out with a string of unsubstantiated assertions that are easily shown to be false with just a little research. So why should I believe anything you say?

You'd have to be extremely gullible to believe that Tai Hai Chen performed his supposed experiment or that such an experiment could give meaningful results. Wouldn't a rotting "thing" give off gases other than CO2, for example? And why would the pressure remain constant inside a sealed chamber in which gases are being produced by decomposition? And doesn't the process of decomposition itself produce heat? Etc, etc.


You only believe things for which there is concrete evidence but yet believe in man-made climate change despite the proven fact that the level of man's effect on atmospheric heating wouldn't be more than 0.03% of any POSSIBLE greenhouse gases.

And now you're a biologists as well. Of course a rotting piece of organic material would give off more than CO2. It would also give of NO2 and SO2 which are stronger "greenhouse gases" than CO2. And yet the temperature STILL did not rise as high as it did with lower amounts of CO2. Despite your disbelief that he could even measure anything after he said he measured it.

It is the blind willingness of people to stick to a political position despite evidence against it that makes this world what it is.
06-02-2017 20:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I can understand why you don't want to talk about Tai's experiment and instead want to bring politics into this. Tai did not do an experiment,it is clear there is no way it could have worked. He is trolling and only a very stupid person would believe that he did actually perform his experiment. You finally worked that out so you are trying to change the subject.
Edited on 06-02-2017 20:40
06-02-2017 23:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
I can understand why you don't want to talk about Tai's experiment and instead want to bring politics into this. Tai did not do an experiment,it is clear there is no way it could have worked. He is trolling and only a very stupid person would believe that he did actually perform his experiment. You finally worked that out so you are trying to change the subject.


The sum total liberal position on climate change is demonstrated on the first page of this website:

https://tinyurl.com/zcncojb

Or this: https://tinyurl.com/goxflfo

Funny how someone else doing essentially the same experiment had the same results.

But as I said, you global warmies are described precisely in the first reference front page.

Might as well give it up. Nothing you say is based on anything you repeat enough to deeply understand and it shows like a laser against the side of your school gymnasium at midnight on a cloudy night.
07-02-2017 01:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
It is the blind willingness of people to stick to a political position despite evidence against it that makes this world what it is.

Well exactly, yourself being the prime example. Who other than an ideologue would reject the documented findings of professional scientists while accepting without question the unsubstantiated claims of an anonymous internet poster, merely because they support his political stance?
Edited on 07-02-2017 01:18
07-02-2017 05:51
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1325)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
It is the blind willingness of people to stick to a political position despite evidence against it that makes this world what it is.

Well exactly, yourself being the prime example. Who other than an ideologue would reject the documented findings of professional scientists while accepting without question the unsubstantiated claims of an anonymous internet poster, merely because they support his political stance?


Surface Decal,

What's your take on this little piece?



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/whistle-blower-global-warming-data-manipulated-paris-conference/


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 07-02-2017 06:05
07-02-2017 22:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
It is the blind willingness of people to stick to a political position despite evidence against it that makes this world what it is.

Well exactly, yourself being the prime example. Who other than an ideologue would reject the documented findings of professional scientists while accepting without question the unsubstantiated claims of an anonymous internet poster, merely because they support his political stance?


Surface Decal,

What's your take on this little piece?



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/whistle-blower-global-warming-data-manipulated-paris-conference/


You won't get any understandable response from decal since that is all he is - a poster child without any other thing in his life except blaming everyone else because his own world is so empty.

Science is for the most part, pretty simple. Every job I obtained I retained knowledge of the possibilities and processes of science. I could have settled on working for a public agency until retirement and been quite well off now. But I opted for a life of research and development that fed my soul if not my pocketbook. Between R&D jobs I often worked almost common labor. For awhile since I was road racing motorcycles semi-pro, I sold motorcycles in a shop. On another occasion one of the men that was crew on my racing sailboat invited me to install high end telephone systems in high-rise office buildings in San Francisco. And yet even in those positions I learned things that could later help my work - from the telephone job I learned how to manage jobs which led to a department manager position at a following R&D job.

The point of all of this is that learning science is a lifetime proposition but you sure as hell aren't going to learn anything by denying that science exists as spot, Chief litebrain, Surface-and-little-else, do.

The popular press are often wrong but a scientist would start from a position of a skeptic and would look for errors. Not take ANY article as TRUTH UNVARNISHED if it meets your political stance.
08-02-2017 21:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/zcncojb

Or this: https://tinyurl.com/goxflfo

Funny how someone else doing essentially the same experiment had the same results.

But as I said, you global warmies are described precisely in the first reference front page.

Might as well give it up. Nothing you say is based on anything you repeat enough to deeply understand and it shows like a laser against the side of your school gymnasium at midnight on a cloudy night.


You did not look at the site you linked I thought you said had practical skills. you can't imbed a link even though there are buttons at the bottom of the window your typing in.

Anyway CO2 traps heat, that is well known and can be demonstrated. The link you showed they were using glass beakers where most of the energy was going to heat the glass, obviously the person performing the experment should know that and is being deceptive. Tai claims to have run a similar experiment but who knows what the **** he did but you seem to believe he did it even though its obvious that he is just waffling. This makes me think that you are very credulous and stupid.

The laws of physics are not a communist plot you muppet.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-02-2017 02:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/zcncojb

Or this: https://tinyurl.com/goxflfo

Funny how someone else doing essentially the same experiment had the same results.

But as I said, you global warmies are described precisely in the first reference front page.

Might as well give it up. Nothing you say is based on anything you repeat enough to deeply understand and it shows like a laser against the side of your school gymnasium at midnight on a cloudy night.


You did not look at the site you linked I thought you said had practical skills. you can't imbed a link even though there are buttons at the bottom of the window your typing in.

Anyway CO2 traps heat, that is well known and can be demonstrated. The link you showed they were using glass beakers where most of the energy was going to heat the glass, obviously the person performing the experment should know that and is being deceptive. Tai claims to have run a similar experiment but who knows what the **** he did but you seem to believe he did it even though its obvious that he is just waffling. This makes me think that you are very credulous and stupid.

The laws of physics are not a communist plot you muppet.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap energy of any kind. All your stupid parlor trick video shows is CO2 absorbing light.


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2017 09:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

https://tinyurl.com/zcncojb

Or this: https://tinyurl.com/goxflfo

Funny how someone else doing essentially the same experiment had the same results.

But as I said, you global warmies are described precisely in the first reference front page.

Might as well give it up. Nothing you say is based on anything you repeat enough to deeply understand and it shows like a laser against the side of your school gymnasium at midnight on a cloudy night.

y
You did not look at the site you linked I thought you said had practical skills. you can't imbed a link even though there are buttons at the bottom of the window your typing in.

Anyway CO2 traps heat, that is well known and can be demonstrated. The link you showed they were using glass beakers where most of the energy was going to heat the glass, obviously the person performing the experment should know that and is being deceptive. Tai claims to have run a similar experiment but who knows what the **** he did but you seem to believe he did it even though its obvious that he is just waffling. This makes me think that you are very credulous and stupid.

The laws of physics are not a communist plot you muppet.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap energy of any kind. All your stupid parlor trick video shows is CO2 absorbing light.
I've had a nonprodutive conversion before about this however your friends have stopped responding so I guess you're on your own on this issue.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.




Join the debate I have done the correct experiment and concluded CO2 does not affect temperature:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact