Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2


There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N205-11-2019 17:42
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
There just isn't. Period.
05-11-2019 17:49
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1459)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There just isn't. Period.


None of them do, it's ambient temperature, nothing more. You can fill a jar with anything like, shine a heat lamp on it, and I'm not sure why the surprise, but it warms up, the jar, and the contents.
05-11-2019 17:54
Third world guy
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Excellent observation, Tai.

Now I wonder if there are estimates of the climatic sensitivity of oxygen and nitrogen, as well as graphs of absorption of IR rays of these two gases.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
05-11-2019 18:03
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
If CO2 increases the cycling of N2 or O2 then that would increase the amount of heat in our atmosphere. Basically, if the elements in the molecule functions in a higher state, say n4 instead of n3 then it would absorb and emit more electromagnetic radiation. But that's getting into atomic physics and nitpicky details.
08-11-2019 12:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There just isn't. Period.


Special effects?:
https://youtu.be/Ge0jhYDcazY
08-11-2019 15:27
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(43)
tmiddles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There just isn't. Period.


Special effects?:
https://youtu.be/Ge0jhYDcazY


Do you see anything wrong with that demonstration? I can think of several variables that would cause the temperature change other than CO2.

At 1:46 begins my issue. The video graphic shows a CO2 molecule being hit by energy/photon/heat (whatever you want to call it). The narration states "the carbon dioxide molecule is particularly susceptible to heat energy and it absorbs the radiation and reradiates it this increases the temperature of planet earth."

First are weazle words like "particularly susceptible". What does that mean other than it infers CO2 has some superpower.

The word "absorbs" is key. There are 3 ways mass transfers heat absorption, convection and conduction. Re-radiating is not one of them. I submit that CO2 only convects the heat to the air. Since the molecule is indiscriminate about direction it acts like a diffuser. Some is convected back to space and some remains in earth's atmosphere.

Then the word "reradiates" gives the impression that the molecule amplifies or increases the heat which we know by the laws of thermal dynamics is not possible. If it were then there would be CO2 engines and generators.

Lastly I will allow for CO2 to effect temperature in the atmosphere. There's something about the way that it diffuses or filters (my words) the heat energy that creates a buffer(my word).

However I don't believe that it has the feedback (alarmist word) that is ascribed to it.

The scientific community must do a better job of convincing the public than the data delivery in that video.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
08-11-2019 16:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There just isn't. Period.


Special effects?:
https://youtu.be/Ge0jhYDcazY


Do you see anything wrong with that demonstration?

I can think of a big problem. This is not a demonstration but rather a parlor trick. It works just like a magician points to an empty hat to draw your attention away from his other hand that is moving a rabbit into position.

In this trick, the viewer's attention is drawn to the bottles and away from the additional energy that is added to the system.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Additional energy is provided in this parlor trick and temperature is increased in the bottles, but the innocent viewer is tricked into believing that the CO2 in the bottle is what is generating the increased temperature.

So the problem really lies with the gullibility of the viewer who is fooled.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-11-2019 18:44
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
tmiddles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There just isn't. Period.


Special effects?:
https://youtu.be/Ge0jhYDcazY


This does not appear to be a controlled experiment considering the experimenter added a whole bunch of stuff to one of the two bottles.
08-11-2019 22:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Harry C wrote:The video graphic shows
But what about the experiment itself comparing Co2 to room air? Do you have your own explanation for why the Co2 bottle was hotter?

IBdaMann wrote:additional energy that is added to the system
It's a comparison of two systems/bottles. Each bottle get's the same exposure to the same radiance so what do you mean?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
This does not appear to be a controlled experiment
So you don't have any ideas on what did happen? Wouldn't this be easy to disprove by repeating the experiment?

It's not the only example. Before I posted:
Hotter Co2

So if I place a white object and a black object out in the sun and measure their temperature after an hour the black object has a higher temperature. Is that a parlor trick?

Radiance is either absorbed, transmitted (passed through), or reflected. We kno from solid matter we interact with: glass, black paint, silver paint. That differences are dramatic between different materials. So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-11-2019 23:11
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:The video graphic shows
But what about the experiment itself comparing Co2 to room air? Do you have your own explanation for why the Co2 bottle was hotter?

IBdaMann wrote:additional energy that is added to the system
It's a comparison of two systems/bottles. Each bottle get's the same exposure to the same radiance so what do you mean?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
This does not appear to be a controlled experiment
So you don't have any ideas on what did happen? Wouldn't this be easy to disprove by repeating the experiment?

It's not the only example. Before I posted:
Hotter Co2

So if I place a white object and a black object out in the sun and measure their temperature after an hour the black object has a higher temperature. Is that a parlor trick?

Radiance is either absorbed, transmitted (passed through), or reflected. We kno from solid matter we interact with: glass, black paint, silver paint. That differences are dramatic between different materials. So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


These amateur experiments are not controlled and therefore not accepted by the international scientific community. Even Gore's chart looks better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Edited on 08-11-2019 23:11
08-11-2019 23:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:The video graphic shows
But what about the experiment itself comparing Co2 to room air? Do you have your own explanation for why the Co2 bottle was hotter?

IBdaMann wrote:additional energy that is added to the system
It's a comparison of two systems/bottles. Each bottle get's the same exposure to the same radiance so what do you mean?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
This does not appear to be a controlled experiment
So you don't have any ideas on what did happen? Wouldn't this be easy to disprove by repeating the experiment?

It's not the only example. Before I posted:
Hotter Co2

So if I place a white object and a black object out in the sun and measure their temperature after an hour the black object has a higher temperature. Is that a parlor trick?

Radiance is either absorbed, transmitted (passed through), or reflected. We kno from solid matter we interact with: glass, black paint, silver paint. That differences are dramatic between different materials. So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them


Who told you the experiment is controlled? Clearly the pressure in the CO2 bottle is way higher since they put a lot of stuff in it.
09-11-2019 00:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:The video graphic shows
But what about the experiment itself comparing Co2 to room air? Do you have your own explanation for why the Co2 bottle was hotter?

It absorbs that color of light more efficiently.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:additional energy that is added to the system
It's a comparison of two systems/bottles. Each bottle get's the same exposure to the same radiance so what do you mean?

Energy is added to the system. It's pretty simple.
tmiddles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
This does not appear to be a controlled experiment
So you don't have any ideas on what did happen? Wouldn't this be easy to disprove by repeating the experiment?

What's to disprove? CO2 absorbs infrared light. What else is new?
tmiddles wrote:
So if I place a white object and a black object out in the sun and measure their temperature after an hour the black object has a higher temperature. Is that a parlor trick?

Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
Radiance is either absorbed, transmitted (passed through), or reflected. We kno from solid matter we interact with: glass, black paint, silver paint. That differences are dramatic between different materials. So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 03:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
09-11-2019 03:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them



What was the pressure in both bottles and how did that relate to Gay-Lussac's Law? Gosh, someone forgot to use science for that demonstration.

Joseph Gay-Lussac (1778-1850)
This law states that the pressure of a given amount of gas held at constant volume is directly proportional to the Kelvin temperature.

Pis proporitonal to T

Same as before, a constant can be put in:

P / T = C

As the pressure goes up, the temperature also goes up, and vice-versa.
Also same as before, initial and final volumes and temperatures under constant pressure can be calculated.

http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html


While science is demanding in exacting the details, it is never forgiving. It is a "thing".
09-11-2019 04:55
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(43)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:The video graphic shows
But what about the experiment itself comparing Co2 to room air? Do you have your own explanation for why the Co2 bottle was hotter?


As much as you pretend to know, you are going so fast that you trip over fundamentals. This is my opinion and unarguable to me. I'm not going to answer your question because it is a diversion of the question I asked you.

So I will redirect my question. Very simply, do you think the video you linked is a valid representation of AGW? I would hope that you don't and can come up with either some independent variables that require disclosure or fallacies to the presentation. Your credibility depends upon this. You posted the video, now stand behind it or disavow.

When I post something that I say I know or is fact, then you can take me to task.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
09-11-2019 08:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:additional energy that is added to the system
It's a comparison of two systems/bottles. Each bottle get's the same exposure to the same radiance so what do you mean?

What you are talking about is the distraction. That different things increase in temperature differently is immaterial because it is expected. The bottles weren't even the only things in the "system." The table and surrounding air were NOT examined and instead were ignored as though they weren't part of the system (you well know that pretending a substantive component of the system isn't part of the system is a favorite pastime of Global Warming believers). The fact that different bottles contained different materials/substances tells any rational person to expect differing temperature increases for the same electromagnetic frequency.

What you are telling me is that I can totally baffle you by engineering a setup in which different components (comprised of differing substances) increase in temperature differently via an equivalent sequence of energy form changes ... and then asking you to explain why they are different. I can see why it was so easy to suck you into the Global Warming religion.

tmiddles wrote:So if I place a white object and a black object out in the sun and measure their temperature after an hour the black object has a higher temperature. Is that a parlor trick?

Not yet; you only have it set up. When you then point to the black object's higher temperature and tell tmiddles that it must be the magic superpower of Global Warming, and he totally buys it ... then you have fooled yet another with the trick.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-11-2019 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.


We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 20:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.


We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.



You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing. the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance. Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?


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.
09-11-2019 20:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Another post from Spot! Yessss! Good times!

spot wrote:You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

Spot, everybody knows that CO2 cannot create energy out of nothing but unfortunately all warmizombies nonetheless INSIST that it does. Pick a warmizombie, any warmizombie, and ask him to explain how "Greenhouse Effect" supposedly works and he will toggle between violating thermodynamics and violating Stefan-Boltzmann.

It's not a question of whether or not there are any warmizombies who claim CO2 creates energy out of nothing. It's a question of how many times any warmizombie can violate thermodynamics within a 15-minute period.

But hey, you know this. Just listen to yourself explain "Greenhouse Effect." Sure, you might be a little rusty and find it a bit difficult to keep up with the hot-shit millenials coming out of Europe these days, but don't sell yourself short. You still got it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-11-2019 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.


We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.



You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.
You are.
spot wrote:
the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance.
No, it is what you are trying to argue.
spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 23:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.


We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.



You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.
You are.
spot wrote:
the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance.
No, it is what you are trying to argue.
spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.


Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?


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.
10-11-2019 01:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.


We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.



This is funny. It's like you're CO2 and spot is N2 or O2. Still, is it enough to make a difference? That there is a debate suggests that the science isn't conclusive.
10-11-2019 06:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
James___ wrote: That there is a debate suggests that the science isn't conclusive.

James__, how are you? How's Norway doing these days?

There is no science supporting Global Warming. If what you have isn't conclusive, it isn't science now, is it?

I hope you're having a great day.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-11-2019 06:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: That there is a debate suggests that the science isn't conclusive.

James__, how are you? How's Norway doing these days?

There is no science supporting Global Warming. If what you have isn't conclusive, it isn't science now, is it?

I hope you're having a great day.


.



Funny that you should ask. The recent weather trend in Norway got me to consider something. And if the adjusted sea level relative to the Moon's position would need to be known.
But to pursue something like that would require visiting a few Scandinavian and European cities to collect data. It's something that if found to be correct might help with hurricane predictions in the US. You know, how many and how strong. This is because hurricanes can only occur if the temperature of the ocean is 84° F. or more. Just like a tornado needs warm air on the ground to feed it.
10-11-2019 15:47
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1459)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: That there is a debate suggests that the science isn't conclusive.

James__, how are you? How's Norway doing these days?

There is no science supporting Global Warming. If what you have isn't conclusive, it isn't science now, is it?

I hope you're having a great day.


.



Funny that you should ask. The recent weather trend in Norway got me to consider something. And if the adjusted sea level relative to the Moon's position would need to be known.
But to pursue something like that would require visiting a few Scandinavian and European cities to collect data. It's something that if found to be correct might help with hurricane predictions in the US. You know, how many and how strong. This is because hurricanes can only occur if the temperature of the ocean is 84° F. or more. Just like a tornado needs warm air on the ground to feed it.


84° F or more, really? And nature never, ever breaks the rules... We've had both, hurricanes, and tornadoes in late December. Do you remember how super-storm Sandy formed?
10-11-2019 17:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
It's actually 79° F. and if a hurricane forms with lower water temperatures, it will quickly weaken and dissipate. All hurricanes in December means is that the Atlantic Ocean in that area is above 79° F. But why is the water warmer?
This is not a forum for discussing research. It's to debate one's opinion of if the science is acceptable or not.


https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/tropical_stuff/hurricane_anatomy/hurricane_anatomy.html
10-11-2019 18:25
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
To give everyone an idea, the Moon's orbit (it's distance, etc. changes) would need to be known along with sea level and the speed of the current. If those are known then it may or may not show a relationship between hurricanes in the north Atlantic and the temperature in Oslo, Norway.
If a relationship is observed then it would also need to agree with temperature variations in Paris, France and Moscow, Russia as well as London, England. This could require traveling to those cities in the name of research, ie., collecting data to work with. Might have to include Stockholm, Sweden and Hamburg, Germany.
Scientific research can be demanding and sometimes sacrifices have to be made.
10-11-2019 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.


Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?


Yet Another Lame Insult Fallacy.
You will also see YALIFNAP. This is Yet Another Lame Insult Fallacy, No Argument Presented.

Liberals, including you, like to turn to insults when you begin to run out of counter arguments. Often, these turn into just insults and not arguments at all.


The Parrot Killer
10-11-2019 22:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
James___ wrote:
It's actually 79° F. and if a hurricane forms with lower water temperatures, it will quickly weaken and dissipate. All hurricanes in December means is that the Atlantic Ocean in that area is above 79° F. But why is the water warmer?
This is not a forum for discussing research. It's to debate one's opinion of if the science is acceptable or not.


Research isn't science. If you want to discuss science, you discuss theories, not research.

Yes, hurricanes can and do form even in pretty cold waters. It is more rare, but it does happen. All you need for a hurricane is a temperature difference, not warm water. The difference is between the water and the upper air temperatures.

Hurricanes are, quite literally, heat. Is the flow of thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-11-2019 22:28
10-11-2019 23:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.


Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?


Yet Another Lame Insult Fallacy.
You will also see YALIFNAP. This is Yet Another Lame Insult Fallacy, No Argument Presented.

Liberals, including you, like to turn to insults when you begin to run out of counter arguments. Often, these turn into just insults and not arguments at all.


So you just made it up and expect people to know what the fux you are on about.


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.
11-11-2019 03:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
Yes. I made up the acrnoym. I've already told you what it was too. Grow up.
11-11-2019 13:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
James___ wrote:
What was the pressure in both bottles and ...

Do you think Alkaseltzer would boost the pressure so much it would explain it? Why would we doubt what we've known since Tyndal discovered it? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

If not it would be easily proven.

Harry C wrote:
...do you think the video you linked is a valid representation of AGW?
IBdaMann wrote:
That different things increase in temperature differently is immaterial because it is expected.
Into the Night wrote:
We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

It's evidence, supported by theory, that CO2 absorbs infrared far more than O2 or N2.

Note the topic here is:
"There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2"

So not a diversion at all but debunking the topic statement directly, with evidence.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
11-11-2019 16:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
What was the pressure in both bottles and ...

Do you think Alkaseltzer would boost the pressure so much it would explain it? Why would we doubt what we've known since Tyndal discovered it? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

If not it would be easily proven.

Harry C wrote:
...do you think the video you linked is a valid representation of AGW?
IBdaMann wrote:
That different things increase in temperature differently is immaterial because it is expected.
Into the Night wrote:
We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

It's evidence, supported by theory, that CO2 absorbs infrared far more than O2 or N2.

Note the topic here is:
"There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2"

So not a diversion at all but debunking the topic statement directly, with evidence.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them



Science is exacting. What is the frequency and amplitude of the light passing through the plastic used in pop bottles? How does this relate to the amount of incoming IR?
What is the pressure difference? With such demonstrations, they should be able to pass a peer review. A lot of the work being accepted today is not peer reviewed.
Just read the first paragraph of the pdf. You'll notice the term collision induced. Also, I am pursuing Natural Climate Variation. If we understood that then we would have a more accurate baseline for global temperature average based on more than observing the temperature.
I'll give you an oddity. It's the oceans that are warming. Heat wave in Paris, it's cooler in Moscow. Antarctica has the same issue. The wind patterns have changed.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409


The 2nd result should be NOAA. I could not find it in the article itself. I didn't search every link in it. In the 1970's they said that deep ocean warming predicted atmospheric warming by 10 years. Today, search engines return popular results which is why about all results will include the term climate change.
I think the oceans are warmer for a different reason. Part of Natural Climate Variation (NCV for an acronym).

Imagehttps://www.ncdc.noaa.gov › sotc
Web results
Global Climate Report - Annual 2018 | State of the Climate | National Centers ...
by TAT Series · Related articles
Jump to Global Temperatures · The 1901–2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (57.0°F), the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-americamovil-us&source=android-browser&q=annual+land+temperature
Edited on 11-11-2019 16:42
11-11-2019 16:53
James___
★★★★☆
(1691)
And then there's this, it's actually something that NCV could explain;


The question of why, in the annual-mean, the northern hemisphere (NH) is warmer than the southern hemisphere (SH) is addressed, revisiting an 1870 paper by James Croll. We first show that ocean is warmer than land in general which, acting alone, would make the SH, with greater ocean fraction, warmer. Croll was aware of this and thought it was caused by greater specific humidity and greenhouse trapping over ocean than over land. However, for any given temperature, it is shown that greenhouse trapping is actually greater over land.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2147-z
11-11-2019 18:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9807)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

It's evidence, supported by theory, that CO2 absorbs infrared far more than O2 or N2.

Note the topic here is:
"There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2"

So not a diversion at all but debunking the topic statement directly, with evidence.
[/quote]

No, it doesn't. It is not possible to trap or slow heat. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
12-11-2019 02:20
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(43)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
What was the pressure in both bottles and ...

Do you think Alkaseltzer would boost the pressure so much it would explain it? Why would we doubt what we've known since Tyndal discovered it? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

If not it would be easily proven.

Harry C wrote:
...do you think the video you linked is a valid representation of AGW?
IBdaMann wrote:
That different things increase in temperature differently is immaterial because it is expected.
Into the Night wrote:
We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

It's evidence, supported by theory, that CO2 absorbs infrared far more than O2 or N2.

Note the topic here is:
"There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2"

So not a diversion at all but debunking the topic statement directly, with evidence.


If the demonstration doesn't have a high correlation to actuality, it's not evidence. I thought you were here to learn or teach. If you stand behind that, you are preaching to the wrong crowd.

I don't know the answer but have a bias. I'm frustrated with misinformation. That demonstration is misleading.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
12-11-2019 17:55
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1459)
Do you think Alkaseltzer would boost the pressure so much it would explain it?


Prove it yourself... Crush one up, and dump it in half a plastic bottle of water, and try to tighten down the cap while it's fizzing... Might want to do it outside, but regardless if you can get the cap on or not, the pressure is undeniable.




Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control312-11-2019 20:41
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)16903-11-2019 19:37
Anyone tried calculating & tracking their CO2 footprint over time?829-10-2019 04:26
Articles
Theory
▲ 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