Remember me
▼ Content

What would the world be like if the atmosphere is 25% O2 and 75% N2?



Page 2 of 4<1234>
25-01-2016 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
It must be your superior brain that allows you to see through this "trick" and deny whats clearly going on in front of you.


No, he just sees the real significance of what they really show, rather than the 'proof' of greenhouse gases that you seek.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2016 20:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Ceist wrote:
spot wrote:
It must be your superior brain that allows you to see through this "trick" and deny whats clearly going on in front of you.


Are you starting to see why I said this forum had become more like a mental health facility than a discussion forum?


Are you starting to see you only contribute insults and belittlement to the discussion?


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2016 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
I think you have to be crazy to post here we are quite obviously playing pidgion chess.

Anyway IBaman, I have two identical chambers one with an elevated co2 level one without I'm montring the pressure so I know it's the same I have a heat source; IR lamp, sun or bonfire of burning physics textbooks, it doesn't really matter and we both know one chamber will be getting hotter then the other, if it's a trick tell us how its done. I'm gullible and stupid so please use simple language.


It's already been explained to you. The bottles are sealed. One is building up greater pressure than the other. That in turn increases it's temperature more than the other. You don't even need a heat lamp in the experiment to see the same difference in temperature!


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2016 20:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the night you seem to believe its a difference in pressure that causes a different result between the two chambers I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going to reassert that It isn't and if you don't believe me you could test it yourself. Thanks for taking the time to write such a long and well formed post but if the underlying assumptions are wrong and quite frankly silly I can't see the point in taking the time to make a long and well formed post in response.
25-01-2016 20:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I think you have to be crazy to post here we are quite obviously playing pidgion chess.

Anyway IBaman, I have two identical chambers one with an elevated co2 level one without I'm montring the pressure so I know it's the same I have a heat source; IR lamp, sun or bonfire of burning physics textbooks, it doesn't really matter and we both know one chamber will be getting hotter then the other, if it's a trick tell us how its done. I'm gullible and stupid so please use simple language.


It's already been explained to you. The bottles are sealed. One is building up greater pressure than the other. That in turn increases it's temperature more than the other. You don't even need a heat lamp in the experiment to see the same difference in temperature!


do the frigging experiment with a pressure gauge in it then.
25-01-2016 22:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
DRKTS wrote:
With just N2 and O2 the average temperature of the Earth would -16C - the same as the Moon. N2 and O2 are transparent the both visible and IR radiation. However once the oceans froze and the Earth's albedo increased the temperature would plummet further. The albedo of ice is 0.9 whereas the earth's albedo is currently 0.3. so we would be getting 40% less solar energy input. (0.9-0.3) x 2/3 (area of ocean cf area of the planet) - assuming no snow fall on the land.


The Moon revolves around the Earth, not around the Sun. You cannot compare the Moon with Earth because the Moon receives much less solar radiation from the Sun as compared to Earth does.
26-01-2016 00:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
With just N2 and O2 the average temperature of the Earth would -16C - the same as the Moon. N2 and O2 are transparent the both visible and IR radiation. However once the oceans froze and the Earth's albedo increased the temperature would plummet further. The albedo of ice is 0.9 whereas the earth's albedo is currently 0.3. so we would be getting 40% less solar energy input. (0.9-0.3) x 2/3 (area of ocean cf area of the planet) - assuming no snow fall on the land.


The Moon revolves around the Earth, not around the Sun. You cannot compare the Moon with Earth because the Moon receives much less solar radiation from the Sun as compared to Earth does.


Kind of. While the Moon is smaller, and therefore receives less total energy, the energy per square meter is exactly the same. The Earth-Moon system revolve around each other, with the Moon taking the 'longer' approach. The Moon receives exactly the same energy per square meter as the Earth does, since it rotates about the same point.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2016 00:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I think you have to be crazy to post here we are quite obviously playing pidgion chess.

Anyway IBaman, I have two identical chambers one with an elevated co2 level one without I'm montring the pressure so I know it's the same I have a heat source; IR lamp, sun or bonfire of burning physics textbooks, it doesn't really matter and we both know one chamber will be getting hotter then the other, if it's a trick tell us how its done. I'm gullible and stupid so please use simple language.


It's already been explained to you. The bottles are sealed. One is building up greater pressure than the other. That in turn increases it's temperature more than the other. You don't even need a heat lamp in the experiment to see the same difference in temperature!


do the frigging experiment with a pressure gauge in it then.


I don't need to. I already know the result. You are welcome to though. You could probably rig it up with relatively cheap dial style tire gauges.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2016 00:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
We both know the result and you don't like it, that's why your trying to bluff your way out like a really crap lawyer with a guilty client
26-01-2016 01:49
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Into the Night wrote:
Kind of. While the Moon is smaller, and therefore receives less total energy, the energy per square meter is exactly the same. The Earth-Moon system revolve around each other, with the Moon taking the 'longer' approach. The Moon receives exactly the same energy per square meter as the Earth does, since it rotates about the same point.


Earth rotates around Sun, so half of Earth always faces Sun. Moon rotates around Earth, so when Moon is behind Earth, Moon gets no sunlight.

In the following case, Moon gets no sunlight, blocked by Earth.

Sun ------------------- Earth ---- Moon

If the Moon rotates around Sun, Moon would always have half of itself facing Sun and would be much hotter than it is now.
Edited on 26-01-2016 01:49
26-01-2016 02:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Kind of. While the Moon is smaller, and therefore receives less total energy, the energy per square meter is exactly the same. The Earth-Moon system revolve around each other, with the Moon taking the 'longer' approach. The Moon receives exactly the same energy per square meter as the Earth does, since it rotates about the same point.


Earth rotates around Sun, so half of Earth always faces Sun. Moon rotates around Earth, so when Moon is behind Earth, Moon gets no sunlight.

In the following case, Moon gets no sunlight, blocked by Earth.

Sun ------------------- Earth ---- Moon

If the Moon rotates around Sun, Moon would always have half of itself facing Sun and would be much hotter than it is now.

I never did say the Moon rotates around the sun, just that the Earth-Moon pair orbit the sun.

When the Moon is behind the Earth, it still gets sunlight. That's the full Moon you see every month.

For a few minutes, the tilt of the Moon's orbit (about 5 degrees) relative to the sun passes through the ecliptic. If that happens during a full moon, you will see an eclipse of the Moon. If it happens during a new moon, you will see an eclipse of the sun.

The Moon's orbit is not quite circular. Like the Earth's orbit around the sun, the Moon has a perigee and an apogee. If the Moon is near perigee during an eclipse of either sun or Moon, the eclipse will be total. If the Moon is near apogee during an eclipse of either sun or Moon, the eclipse will be umbral. If the tilt doesn't quite match up bit it's close enough, you will get a partial eclipse.

The Moon's day is quite long. About 14 days on Earth. That gives the surface plenty of time to get hot. The night is equally long, which gives the surface plenty of time to get cold (cold as space within the vicinity of Earth, in fact). Coupled with no atmosphere to moderate any warming or cooling, the Moon is a harsh mistress indeed.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2016 02:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
We both know the result and you don't like it, that's why your trying to bluff your way out like a really crap lawyer with a guilty client


No, I've got better things to do. Like I said, you are welcome to set up the experiment yourself with the tire gauges and see how it comes out. Heck. Set up the experiment as shown, but without the light and see for yourself.

You should know what burden of proof is, and why the burden of proof lies with one or the other.
In this is case it is you. You are the one trying to claim this 'proof'.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2016 08:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I just did as a a matter of fact I got a bottle of pop shaked it for a bit and noticed how the temperature diden't change, my housemate who drinks the crap will be able to tell by the difference in temperature to open it over the sink
26-01-2016 08:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I'll tell him he's got some nut from the internet to thank.
26-01-2016 09:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
I just did as a a matter of fact I got a bottle of pop shaked it for a bit and noticed how the temperature diden't change, my housemate who drinks the crap will be able to tell by the difference in temperature to open it over the sink

How did you measure the temperature?


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2016 12:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
How much variation do you expect? I used my hand to be honest but I could borrow something from work that's callibrated and accurate to a 10th of a degree so well able to pick up the variation shown in the video.
26-01-2016 18:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
spot wrote:
Into the night: I know that but still I would concerned that over time enough co2 would escape as to affect the experiment, as I said earlier if anyone was really interested they could do it themselves. It demonstrates the basic principle that CO2 concentration affects temperature.

It only demonstrates that CO2 has an absorption signature that aligns with that lamp.

Do the same experiment with two tanks, one of pure CO2 and one of pure O3. Seal a UV-C lamp and thermometer inside each.

...then conclude that O3, not CO2, causes Global Warming and that it is an empirical observation that anyone can replicate for him/herself.

Parlor tricks. You gotta love 'em.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
26-01-2016 19:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Pure ozone is more difficult to source then hangover tablets, are you sure your not getting O2 and O3 mixed up?
26-01-2016 19:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
ah I read it back, I see what you are trying to prove, as I said earlier its not the lamp you can use any heat source such as strong sunlight or bonfire of burning physics textbooks to get the same effect.
26-01-2016 19:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
spot wrote:
Pure ozone is more difficult to source then hangover tablets, are you sure your not getting O2 and O3 mixed up?


You can't put a tablet in a bottle. It would not be a controlled experiment.
26-01-2016 22:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
To be honest I'm having a hard time working out what the hell your trying to say, are you using Google translate?
26-01-2016 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
How much variation do you expect? I used my hand to be honest but I could borrow something from work that's callibrated and accurate to a 10th of a degree so well able to pick up the variation shown in the video.

You won't pick up the variation shown in the video by simply shaking soda. That bottle is already pressurized. You are just adding a bit more to it.


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2016 22:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the night: I know that but still I would concerned that over time enough co2 would escape as to affect the experiment, as I said earlier if anyone was really interested they could do it themselves. It demonstrates the basic principle that CO2 concentration affects temperature.

It only demonstrates that CO2 has an absorption signature that aligns with that lamp.

Do the same experiment with two tanks, one of pure CO2 and one of pure O3. Seal a UV-C lamp and thermometer inside each.

...then conclude that O3, not CO2, causes Global Warming and that it is an empirical observation that anyone can replicate for him/herself.

Parlor tricks. You gotta love 'em.


.


I like this one. It eliminates the filtering effect of the bottle plastic altogether. It also shows how inane whole experiment is.


The Parrot Killer
27-01-2016 02:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
spot wrote:
ah I read it back, I see what you are trying to prove, as I said earlier its not the lamp you can use any heat source such as strong sunlight or bonfire of burning physics textbooks to get the same effect.

No. Perform the demonstration as I have laid it out. Use a UV-C lamp as proscribed. I welcome all people to perform this test for themselves and to witness the undeniable truth.

Then you are to conclude what I tell you to conclude, which is that O3, not O2, causes Global Warming. It is the only option available to you...aside from not being gullible in the first place and falling for parlor tricks.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

Edited on 27-01-2016 02:11
27-01-2016 12:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Why bother, I dont have a UV lamp why not just look it up and work out what would happen? it blocks UV light so I imagine that it would warm up. I could probably use math and work out by how much I'm not the one denying 190 years of knowlege I'm just showing that a kitchen table experment undermines everything you nutcases say.
27-01-2016 15:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
spot wrote: Why bother, I dont have a UV lamp.

Until you perform the experiment and conclude what you are told, you will remain a science denier.

Isn't that how it works?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
27-01-2016 15:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Who am I to say how science works or what would make you accept something, what I do know and can demonstrate is that the concentration of CO2 can affect temperature.
27-01-2016 15:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
spot wrote: Who am I to say how science works or what would make you accept something, what I do know and can demonstrate is that the concentration of CO2 can affect temperature.

Of course you can. All you need to do is provide a standard heat lamp that radiates primarily within the CO2 absorption signature.

...but we know that O3, and not CO2, causes Global Warming because of the demonstration that anyone can do (but that you are too afraid to perform because you are a science denier).

Go do the test as I have proscribed, conclude what I am telling you to conclude and then come back and we'll talk. Until then, I don't want to talk to any science denier.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
27-01-2016 16:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
There needs to be nothing special about the lamp, I used a 100w lightblub and made a small hole in the bottle so as to make sure its internal pressure was the same as the external pressure, I couldent borrow a thermeter from work but you could tell one bottell is warmer then the other after a few minutes. You could use strong sunlight or a bonfire of burning phyisics textbooks if you so wished, the Sun is what is heating the CO2 in the atmosphere also so I dont need a majic lamp to make the "trick" work.

As a matter of interest where did you source the ozone and a lamp that only emits UV and not heat as well because O3 is a greenhouse gas as well so IR radition will affect this?
27-01-2016 21:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
spot wrote: There needs to be nothing special about the lamp, I used a 100w lightblub and made a small hole in the bottle so as to make sure its internal pressure was the same as the external pressure, I couldent borrow a thermeter from work but you could tell one bottell is warmer then the other after a few minutes.


You are obviously missing the point.

You are simply telling me alternate ways to perform your parlor trick while repeating your insistence that I allow it to fool me into believing the erroneous conclusions you are instructing me to believe.

I, however, am insisting that you perform my parlor trick and to believe the erroneous parallel conclusions that I am instructing you to believe for your exact same reasons, i.e. that anyone is free to perform the parlor trick (and that I want others to subscribe to my erroneous conclusions).

spot wrote: You could use strong sunlight or a bonfire of burning phyisics textbooks if you so wished, the Sun is what is heating the CO2 in the atmosphere also so I dont need a majic lamp to make the "trick" work.

Again, that would be great if I were inclined to perform your parlor trick and believe your erroneous conclusions.

But since I want you to believe my erroneous conclusions, the discussion is about you performing my parlor trick. The Sun is what is heating the O3 in the atmosphere so you don't need any magic lamp; just any UV-C emitter will do.

spot wrote: As a matter of interest where did you source the ozone and a lamp that only emits UV and not heat as well because O3 is a greenhouse gas as well so IR radition will affect this?

I'm glad you brought this up. What makes you think O3 is "greenhouse gas" in the first place? Have you already performed my parlor trick and subscribed to my conclusions as instructed?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-01-2016 00:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
No I cant really see what point your trying to make other then to make me jump through hoops. My point is that Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall knew what they were talking about and you and your fellow goons don't. The what you call a "parlour trick" simply demonstrates it to any school child no matter how pompous and sciencey your protests are.

Tai Hi Chans question is answered assuming he is capable of processing the answer of course.
28-01-2016 03:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
No I cant really see what point your trying to make other then to make me jump through hoops. My point is that Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall knew what they were talking about and you and your fellow goons don't. The what you call a "parlour trick" simply demonstrates it to any school child no matter how pompous and sciencey your protests are.

Tai Hi Chans question is answered assuming he is capable of processing the answer of course.


Ah...so you are unwilling to perform IBdaMann's parlor trick at all simply because you don't think O3 warms up when exposed to UV light?


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2016 07:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
No I said I don't have ozone and a UV-C lamp so I would have to look up the effect I assume you pair have done it in fashion that guarantees your blocking heat from the lamp because that would affect it, I KNOW what the effect CO2 has and you pair are wrong and it's simple to PROVE that.
28-01-2016 15:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
No I said I don't have ozone and a UV-C lamp so I would have to look up the effect I assume you pair have done it in fashion that guarantees your blocking heat from the lamp because that would affect it, I KNOW what the effect CO2 has and you pair are wrong and it's simple to PROVE that.

Ask them what Atmospheric Physics textbooks they have read and would recommend.



28-01-2016 15:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Unless they burnt them for a heat source for my experiment.
28-01-2016 15:52
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
Unless they burnt them for a heat source for my experiment.

Without reading any of them first of course. Because they just KNOW the textbooks are all wrong, so why would they read them?




Edited on 28-01-2016 15:56
28-01-2016 16:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
they wouldent want to be contaminated by relgion, hang on I just had two bottles with different substances heating up at differnet rates, next week I'll be turning water into wine.
30-01-2016 02:55
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
they wouldent want to be contaminated by relgion, hang on I just had two bottles with different substances heating up at differnet rates, next week I'll be turning water into wine.


They are torturing the laws of physics so much, they make them whine.



30-01-2016 17:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
spot wrote:No I said I don't have ozone and a UV-C lamp

The sun dumps a boatload of UV-A,B and C on the earth. If you plan on sitting in the sun for an extended period then you might want to protect yourself with sunblock.

If you go to the store to buy sunblock, you will find many brands with different protection levels and varying degrees of waterproof-ness. You will also find many that advertise that they block both UV-A and UV-B. But what about protection from UV-C? None seem to protect against it.

It turns out that it isn't necessary. Our ozone (O3) absorbs all the UV-C that the sun can dish out. Essentially no UV-C reaches the earth's surface.

When the day comes that you have all the props to perform my parlor trick, you will find that the O3 absorbs the UV-C like a sponge (thus heating up) while the CO2 allows it to pass right through. The parlor trick works best when the tanks are made of UV-transparent polymer and the UV-C flows unabated from the CO2 tank having no effect whatsoever.

The best part of any parlor trick comes when the demonstration is over and you tell the audience "That's why O3 is the driver for Global Warming!" and you watch the gullible ones eat it up, and talk about how they are going to teach these "conclusions" to impressionable children!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-01-2016 18:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
No the experiment proves CO2 can affect temperature you said it couldn't. I said nothing about the properties of other substances, as things get warm they emit IR radiation.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate What would the world be like if the atmosphere is 25% O2 and 75% N2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
Considering O2, N2, O3 absorb more than 99% of incoming shortwave radiation, which is far more powerful118-04-2019 19:31
Alpine tundra releases long-frozen CO2 to the atmosphere, exacerbating climate warming522-03-2019 04:21
▲ 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