Thwarting the Warmizombies' Rush to Wikipedia

Harry C wrote:She put a thermometer in each of two glass cylinders, pumped carbon dioxide gas into one and air into the other and set the cylinders in the Sun.

Harry C wrote:
On the subject of fighting Warmazombies, check out this news item.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-understood-physics-climate-change-120935295.html

Long before the current political divide over climate change, and even before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), an American scientist named Eunice Foote documented the underlying cause of today's climate change crisis.

The idea that the atmosphere trapped heat was known, but not the cause.

Harry C wrote:
On the subject of fighting Warmazombies, check out this news item.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-understood-physics-climate-change-120935295.html

And I can understand your hesitation to click on a link, here's a synopsis:
Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote. The year was 1856. Foote's brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming. Foote conducted a simple experiment. She put a thermometer in each of two glass cylinders, pumped carbon dioxide gas into one and air into the other and set the cylinders in the Sun. The cylinder containing carbon dioxide got much hotter than the one with air, and Foote realized that carbon dioxide would strongly absorb heat in the atmosphere.

Why, oh why do those who know better in the scientific community not debunk this?

IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody performs this parlor trick in the sun.

Harry C wrote:Since the article says the experiment was performed in the sun, what is the significance of your quoted statement?

Harry C wrote:Also, would the result vary whether it was carbon dioxide or carbonic acid? Thank you.

Harry C wrote:Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/

From the Website: Welcome! The Climate, Water, and Energy lab is headed by Dr. Sylvia Dee, a climate scientist specializing in atmospheric modeling, water isotope physics, and paleoclimate data-model comparison.

Harry C wrote:
In this day and time, it is deplorable that a person of some authority who should know better makes such pronouncements. The problem is not me but Sylvia G. Dee, Assistant Professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Rice University. I would love to witness the exchange that [fill in the blank gender pronoun] would have here.

Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/

duncan61 wrote:I would like to share my personal observations
If you fill a closed clear container with extra CO2 and put both in the sun the CO2 enriched container will get warmer than the one that is air.

duncan61 wrote:Two problems

IBdaMann wrote:

Nonetheless, if you could enlighten me as to what part of my statement is confusing you...

Let me know if you remain unclear on any part of this.

duncan61 wrote:

Harry C wrote:
In this day and time, it is deplorable that a person of some authority who should know better makes such pronouncements. The problem is not me but Sylvia G. Dee, Assistant Professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Rice University. I would love to witness the exchange that [fill in the blank gender pronoun] would have here.

Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/

I would like to share my personal observations
If you fill a closed clear container with extra CO2 and put both in the sun the CO2 enriched container will get warmer than the one that is air.Two problems
.How much extra CO2 do you need to put in to detect any difference and does it keep going up?
I saw a myth busters show where they had 2 standard greenhouses set up and a CO2 concentrated green house and it did get warmer than the standard by .8 C. 2 problems
.It was warmer by .8 C but it capped out.it did not keep getting warmer
.When the concentration was calculated it was 75,000 ppm.What a lot of people are not aware of is the reality it is going to be very hard to get CO2 levels to 500ppm even though this would be a good thing.plants and sea life all benefit from more CO2 we are at 400ppm plus minus 20ppm.I am still taking regular readings so what that means is how things are now is how it is going to stay

Harry C wrote:First and foremost thank you for indulging my inquiry. I watched everyone of those videos.

Harry C wrote:My field of endeavor is business. I have minimal education in science, just what was required to get through public schools and college business.

Harry C wrote:The reason for the post was because I considered the linked opinion piece as part of the propaganda of "warmazombies" and sincerely wanted to know how to debunk it.

Harry C wrote:This Sylvia Dee should know better. Why is she complicit in perpetuating a myth using a test published in 1856?

Question: What do warmizombies enjoy even more than referencing dead people who cannot be cross examined? What do warmizombies enjoy even more than pretending to be omniscient?

Answer: Warmizombies love to reference dead people who they pretend were omniscient.

Harry C wrote: My only thought on the matter was something to do with ideal gas law and the effect of pressure on the experiments.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote:First and foremost thank you for indulging my inquiry. I watched everyone of those videos.

I hope you saw the common theme along with the total absence of the scientific method.

Harry C wrote:My field of endeavor is business. I have minimal education in science, just what was required to get through public schools and college business.

All scams involve impelling people to act on emotion without understanding clearly any technical details of what is supposedly being discussed. In your case, you should always be amazingly skeptical of any person who is using plausible-sounding but somewhat unclear (to you) physics principles to get you to believe/accept some underlying assumption. Warmizombies know that there are many people like you who want to do the right thing and who are smart but who studied other things besides physics and math. Warmizombies simply use "science" as their angle of attack to confuse/fool you. The same goes for cryptocurrency scams. The world is full of people who simply have not studied economics to proficiency yet desire to become rich quickly. If you have never listened to someone explain the "tokenomics" of Safemoon then you should download a podcast and be prepared to being totally confused yet totally convinced that you need to get yourself "summa-dat" so that you can retire wealthy before lunchtime tomorrow.

Harry C wrote:The reason for the post was because I considered the linked opinion piece as part of the propaganda of "warmazombies" and sincerely wanted to know how to debunk it.

There is nothing to debunk, only a logical fallacy to declare invalid. A demonstration of CO2 absorbing infrared is performed. We all know that CO2 absorbs infrared particularly well. So does a cheesburger. The warmizombies then tell their scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept target audience to conclude ... Global Warming! They don't tell their audience to simply conclude that CO2 readily absorbs infrared, as a teacher would in a science classroom.

This is why I asked you to pay close attention to various points in the videos, specifically where they reveal their deception and assert that "lamps equate to the sun" and "bottles equate to the earth," etc... Their audience is not supposed to question what they are told to believe. Do you understand how religions work? This is the same principle. I can verify the truth of Christianity for you with a quick demonstration you can do at home. The next time it rains, just look for a rainbow and notice that the earth does not flood or that the ocean level does not rise ... with God's promise being the only explanation. Just don't question.

Harry C wrote:This Sylvia Dee should know better. Why is she complicit in perpetuating a myth using a test published in 1856?

There are two parts to this answer. The first part I answered above ... pay close attention:

Question: What do warmizombies enjoy even more than referencing dead people who cannot be cross examined? What do warmizombies enjoy even more than pretending to be omniscient?

Answer: Warmizombies love to reference dead people who they pretend were omniscient.

I will add to this that the reason warmizombies are so apt to reference dead people is because time moves in only one direction, i.e. from the past into the future. Science is continually being improved, by falsifying existing theories and either discarding them or fixing them. Warmizombies love to point to the discredited results/conclusions of dead people and claim that their conclusions were "known" back in that time period. Warmizombies are fully cognizant that there just aren't any people who will research how and when those results/conclusions were discarded from the body of science. Whenever someone says that Arrhenius Svante "knew" about Greenhouse Effect back in the late 1800s, just counter with "Aristotle knew that an object's natural state is at rest back in 360 b.c." Neither exists in the body of science today.

Rule: On matters of science, only science is acceptable. No testimony from dead people is acceptable.

The second part of the answer involves human psychology. Warmizombies are losers who do not see themselves as important. In a world they do not understand and in which they feel helpless, they are desperate to be smart, powerful and relevant. Global Warming affords such losers the ability to live out a fantasy whereby they transform into superheroes who are loved and respected by all because they are fighting to save humanity and the planet. Additionally, the Marxist basis of the religion legitimizes their mindset that they know what is best and that they must intervene to save you from yourself. Global Warming is a service that enables mindless idiots to convince themselves that they are geniuses who speak for the world's scientists and who are going to use their physics brilliance to save humanity from itself. Now that they are members of the Climate Avengers, they have overpowering feelings of relevance rushing through their veins. When they speak, it's like superheroes warning the public of imminent danger. Superheroes are to be heeded, not questioned.

There is no reasoning with warmizombies, hence the name Any discussions that would require a warmizombie to admit that he is totally wrong about his underlying assumptions threaten to turn Cinderella's chariot into a pumpkin, forcing the loser to abandon his fantasy addiction and to go from a great high directly into a cold turkey withdrawal. The most for which you can hope is for the warmizombie to make some lame excuse for why he cannot/will not continue talking to you while blaming you for derailing the discussion.

Harry C wrote: My only thought on the matter was something to do with ideal gas law and the effect of pressure on the experiments.

The Ideal Gas law is often inappropriately thrown into the mix for purposes of confusing people ... and it is often omitted when it needs to be mentioned, also for purposes of confusing people.

The Ideal Gas law is simple. It predicts the instantaneous change in pressure and temperature, i.e. if you increase the pressure then you will increase the temperature and if you increase the temperature you will increase the pressure. But this relationship only applies when there are changes. If you compress a gas in a cannister, you change both its temperature and its pressure. The Ideal Gas law says that the gas' temperature will increase along with its pressure. If you then store the cannister in your basement, the compressed gas will nonetheless cool over time to the temperature of its surroundings despite remaining compressed. Of course, as it cools within the cannister, its pressure will nonetheless decrease per the Ideal Gas law.

[*find-warmizombie_psychology]
[*find-discredited_dead_people]

.

Harry C wrote:I wish I had the knowledge base to correspond with Sylvia Dee on the subject.

IBdaMann wrote:
What makes you think she has any sort of "knowledge base"? Did she fool you with plausible-sounding gibber-babble? What makes you think that she knows any more than you do?
Is there something that I am missing?

duncan61 wrote:
I would like to do this test myself.If I go buy 2 plastic greenhouses and place them against the wall outside and monitor the temperature during the day.One will be standard and I can buy a small can of CO2 at the same store.I will increase the CO2 to 800ppm and monitor it for an hour.Then I will crank it up to 1600ppm and keep doubling till the can runs out.I doubt I will get any difference in temperature till it gets up in to 5 figures.2 things.I wish to have the greenhouses as we grow herbs anyway and if I post my results will anyone care

Harry C wrote:

duncan61 wrote: I would like to do this test myself.

I would too.

Harry C wrote:I'd love to see it go viral and be the standard retort for every time someone trots out the "parlor-trick". Why hasn't this been done.

duncan61 wrote: Its my time effort and money

IBdaMann wrote:

Before you begin you really should determine your hypothesis, as is done with any valid experiment seeking to draw a conclusion, and then ensure your demonstration illustrates that principle.

I can see that you get energized over the idea of falsifying a particular narrative.

Let me know when you want to do this and I'll help you ensure you succeed.

Harry C wrote:I think what I would like to do is to be able to demonstrate the predictability of temperature change

IBdaMann wrote:

We already have physics. Physics predicts temperature change very nicely.

You need to be specific. Instead of thinking in terms of what you would like to demonstrate, think in terms of what you want others to conclude.

Imagine devising a demonstration that clearly demonstrates some physics principle, but your target audience does not arrive at your desired conclusion. Would you be OK with that? ... or is an inescapable conclusion a necessary part of your project?

If it is, then take a moment to reflect on the key point you wish to make. If you cannot express your desired conclusion clearly and succinctly, i.e. your eventual hypothesis, then you are not ready to devise a demonstration.

IBdaMann wrote:

We already have physics. Physics predicts temperature change very nicely.

You need to be specific. Instead of thinking in terms of what you would like to demonstrate, think in terms of what you want others to conclude.

Imagine devising a demonstration that clearly demonstrates some physics principle, but your target audience does not arrive at your desired conclusion. Would you be OK with that? ... or is an inescapable conclusion a necessary part of your project?

If it is, then take a moment to reflect on the key point you wish to make. If you cannot express your desired conclusion clearly and succinctly, i.e. your eventual hypothesis, then you are not ready to devise a demonstration.

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Before you begin you really should determine your hypothesis, as is done with any valid experiment seeking to draw a conclusion, and then ensure your demonstration illustrates that principle.

I can see that you get energized over the idea of falsifying a particular narrative.

Let me know when you want to do this and I'll help you ensure you succeed.

I think what I would like to do is to be able to demonstrate the predictability of temperature change by replicating the most common "parlor tricks" and reconciling the change in temperature exclusively to the known & verifiable variables using the laws of physics. The objective would be to neuter the use of "parlor tricks" to eliminate the attribution of increased temperature to the existence of CO2. It would also be desirable to measure the change in CO2 specifically over a range of 200 to 1000 ppm to measure the effect. Is that possible?

Harry C wrote:Is it too broad to state that the conclusion is: CO2 cannot increase the temperature in a simulation to imitate the effect of a greenhouse gas?

duncan61 wrote:Wrong.I am doing my test outside and will monitor both greenhouses for a day and note any difference.

CO2 converts certain electromagnetic frequencies to thermal energy ... and this increases the temperature of the CO2.

duncan61 wrote:I am a selfish prick and only care for me so what reason would I have to convert any one else.This excersize is all for me

Harry C wrote: ... the thermal energy created by CO2 in the atmosphere is simply diverted rather than amplified? Warmazombies require an amplification effect for their doomsday mechanism to be true, otherwise there is no pending apocalypse.

Harry C wrote:1. If I understand correctly, the effect of CO2 could keep less heat from making it's way to the earth's surface.

Harry C wrote:2. If CO2 had the property attributed to it, logic would dictate that we could use CO2 as an energy source and have a "CO2 powered engine" with sunlight.

Harry C wrote:3. I was thinking about the reason that the ubiquitous 'they' shifted away from "Global Warming" and to "Climate Change".

Harry C wrote: I've always thought it was ludicrous to believe man has the ability to effect his own climate.

Harry C wrote: So I have to ask, does increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in a specific area of the globe cause any kind of observable shift to weather patterns

Harry C wrote:4. Since the sun is constantly providing heat to the earth,

Harry C wrote: ... what mechanism regulates how much heat stays in the atmosphere?

Harry C wrote: I know there is a 'cooling effect' when the earth's surface is turned away from the sun.

duncan61 wrote:
I am a selfish prick and only care for me so what reason would I have to convert any one else.This excersize is all for me