Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 3 of 4<1234>
30-01-2016 21:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: No the experiment proves CO2 can affect temperature

Your parlor trick does not prove that CO2 can increase temperature without a chemical reaction. Your parlor trick proves that a heat lamp can increase temperature.

How did you miss that? Oh, that's right, you believe whatever you are told to conclude after being mesmerized by parlor tricks.


.


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
30-01-2016 21:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
What is the chemical reaction? how did they do this one then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fviqo-_3_4M
They like big explosions and loud vehicles I don't think they are ideologically disposed to fooling people about this.

Look the fact is we are arguing over the very basic fundamentals, Again this is not controversial. If you want to attack global warming science for what ever reason why not find a more credible line of attack?
30-01-2016 22:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: how did they do this one then?

I don't know if you noticed but that parlor trick was not performed outdoors in the open sunlight that governs the temperature in our environment.

That parlor trick was performed exclusively in a sealed room where no sunlight whatsoever was allowed to affect the trick.

Then special lights were used to generate powerful emission within CO2's particular absorption signature. If they had instead used a powerful UV-C lamp and had used O3 instead of CO2, the results would have been the same, but you'd be forced to conclude that O3 drives Global Warming and that O3 is melting the Greenland ice sheet (which is actually accumulating ice).

Are you telling me that you couldn't figure this out on your own?

Are you telling me that you really do believe everything you read on the internet?

Since you're that gullible, did you know that you don't need a stove to cook food? All you need to do is fill your kitchen with CO2. Yeah, it really works!


.


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
Edited on 30-01-2016 22:23
30-01-2016 22:22
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
explain how a thermal blanket works then?
30-01-2016 22:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: explain how a thermal blanket works then?


Why don't you explain to me instead, making it clear that the thermal blanket is not placed around the heat source.


.


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
30-01-2016 22:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
They look like lights you would use for lighting in a television studio to me, which is not surprising because that's what they had to hand but tell me where do you get these "Special lights" for fooling people? are they commercially available? can you supply a link with the specifications of one of these lights? or do you have to be a member of the Illuminati to get one?

I think I see your problem your suffering from Paranoia.
30-01-2016 22:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
A thermal blanket works by backradiation which violates the laws of physics according to you.
30-01-2016 22:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: I think I see your problem your suffering from Paranoia.

I'll consider your king tipped. Let me know when you want to play again.


.


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
30-01-2016 22:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
There are no such thing as "special lights" that they could have used are there? you're annoyed because you have been caught lying again.

Edited on 30-01-2016 22:38
30-01-2016 22:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:
There are no such thing as "special lights" that they could have used are there? you're annoyed because you have been caught lying again.

Do you normally pout when you lose?

Like I said, let me know when you want to play again. We can go over it as many times as you like.


.


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
30-01-2016 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
They look like lights you would use for lighting in a television studio to me, which is not surprising because that's what they had to hand but tell me where do you get these "Special lights" for fooling people? are they commercially available? can you supply a link with the specifications of one of these lights? or do you have to be a member of the Illuminati to get one?

I think I see your problem your suffering from Paranoia.


I don't think you realize how hot those lights really are. I've worked in a television studio. All the Mythbusters routine is is a larger version of the same parlor trick you showed us earlier.

Oddly, the 'control' boxes also had CO2 and methane in them, just not as much.

The lights that IBdaMann refers to are easily available. They can be found through specialty suppliers. They are used for everything from erasing UV EPROMS to making printing plates to silkscreening. You will also find them in household ozone generators and hot tub sterilization units.

The only Illuminati that seems interested in them are the Bavarian Illuminati (identified by the Eye of the Pyramid symbol), to scan money with, or the Network Illuminati (identified by a UPC sticker encoded with the number 666), for the geeky nature of such lights.



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-01-2016 00:11
31-01-2016 01:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:
A thermal blanket works by backradiation which violates the laws of physics according to you.

You did not meet the stated requirements.

You were to explain how a thermal blanket works when not applied over a heat source.


.


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
31-01-2016 02:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:Look the fact is we are arguing over the very basic fundamentals, Again this is not controversial. If you want to attack global warming science for what ever reason why not find a more credible line of attack?


Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"



Edited on 31-01-2016 02:34
31-01-2016 04:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
spot wrote:Look the fact is we are arguing over the very basic fundamentals, Again this is not controversial. If you want to attack global warming science for what ever reason why not find a more credible line of attack?


Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

Here is yet another example from Ceist that his only interest is to insult people, ignore any physical laws described by anyone and to try to change the subject. It is also another example from Ceist that once he fixates on a particularly 'clever' insult in his own mind, he spams every thread with it multiple times.

Why don't I just refer to this technique as CSIEA (Ceist Spams Insults Everywhere Again)?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-01-2016 04:13
31-01-2016 04:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Into the Night wrote: It is also another example from Ceist that once he fixates on a particularly 'clever' insult in his own mind, he spams every thread with it multiple times.

Cut Ceist a little slack. You have probably noticed that Ceist is desperate for attention and spamming across multiple threads is Ceist's way of expressing hope beyond hope that someone is listening.

When you respond to Ceist you are committing one of the kindest acts of charity possible to mortal man. You are an example to be emulated.


.


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
31-01-2016 13:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
I don't think you realize how hot those lights really are. I've worked in a television studio. All the Mythbusters routine is is a larger version of the same parlor trick you showed us earlier.

Oddly, the 'control' boxes also had CO2 and methane in them, just not as much.

The lights that IBdaMann refers to are easily available. They can be found through specialty suppliers. They are used for everything from erasing UV EPROMS to making printing plates to silkscreening. You will also find them in household ozone generators and hot tub sterilization units.

The only Illuminati that seems interested in them are the Bavarian Illuminati (identified by the Eye of the Pyramid symbol), to scan money with, or the Network Illuminati (identified by a UPC sticker encoded with the number 666), for the geeky nature of such lights.


I know all that (except about the Network Illuminati) I was making fun of your compadre because he was suggesting that they were "special lights" and the Mythbusters team were fooling everyone. We also have you saying that my "trick" was due to pressure when that is proven false that its due to a chemical reaction, all daft suggestions worthy of ridicule. You want me to do a experiment with a UV light for some reason although I'm not claiming that the increase in temperature is due to an increase in the concentration in ozone in the atmosphere I assume you just want to waste time.

The point is it's proof that changing the composition of gasses in a amount of air can effect the heat retaining properties of that amount of air. Can we put that to bed now?

Please?
31-01-2016 16:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:The point is it's proof that changing the composition of gasses in a amount of air can effect the heat retaining properties of that amount of air. Can we put that to bed now?

How disappointing. Not only have you completely missed the point of all previous discussions but your already poor science acumen just dropped a few more points.

Unless you would care to define it (formally, mathematically), no substance has any "heat retention." All substances emit thermal radiation based only on their temperature. You are welcome to do your homework. Science put that issue to bed well over a century ago. Nothing "traps" heat.

Your post exposes your deep denial. All of your core Global Warming beliefs are patently false and are based on violations of physics about which you staunchly refuse to educate yourself. You instead choose to remain blissfully ignorant of basic science and to retain your sad gullibility to scams perpetuated by Global Warming clergy.

If it makes you happy then, of course, believe whatever you need to believe. Just remember, if that requires you to play "pretend scientist" then you might want to avoid public forums where someone who is not of your particular faith will inevitably burst your bubble.


.


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
31-01-2016 16:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
no need to define it mathematically I have shown experimentally that your objections are silly

31-01-2016 17:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:no need to define it mathematically I have shown experimentally that your objections are silly

Aaah, you have "shown" what you cannot define. That makes sense.


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
31-01-2016 18:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
There are those who say a bee flying is a mathematical impossibility, instead of sitting down with them and doing sums its far easier to point to a bee, flying in defiance of their limited understanding of the laws of physics.
31-01-2016 19:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:
There are those who say a bee flying is a mathematical impossibility, instead of sitting down with them and doing sums its far easier to point to a bee, flying in defiance of their limited understanding of the laws of physics.

So how do you suggest I simply point to the nonexistent "greenhouse effect'" in defiance of your misunderstanding of science? How would that work?


.


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
31-01-2016 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: It is also another example from Ceist that once he fixates on a particularly 'clever' insult in his own mind, he spams every thread with it multiple times.

Cut Ceist a little slack. You have probably noticed that Ceist is desperate for attention and spamming across multiple threads is Ceist's way of expressing hope beyond hope that someone is listening.

When you respond to Ceist you are committing one of the kindest acts of charity possible to mortal man. You are an example to be emulated.


.

I have noticed. That's why I just came up with an acronym for it.

CSIEA. Ceist Spams Insults Everywhere Again.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
I don't think you realize how hot those lights really are. I've worked in a television studio. All the Mythbusters routine is is a larger version of the same parlor trick you showed us earlier.

Oddly, the 'control' boxes also had CO2 and methane in them, just not as much.

The lights that IBdaMann refers to are easily available. They can be found through specialty suppliers. They are used for everything from erasing UV EPROMS to making printing plates to silkscreening. You will also find them in household ozone generators and hot tub sterilization units.

The only Illuminati that seems interested in them are the Bavarian Illuminati (identified by the Eye of the Pyramid symbol), to scan money with, or the Network Illuminati (identified by a UPC sticker encoded with the number 666), for the geeky nature of such lights.


I know all that (except about the Network Illuminati) I was making fun of your compadre because he was suggesting that they were "special lights" and the Mythbusters team were fooling everyone. We also have you saying that my "trick" was due to pressure when that is proven false that its due to a chemical reaction, all daft suggestions worthy of ridicule. You want me to do a experiment with a UV light for some reason although I'm not claiming that the increase in temperature is due to an increase in the concentration in ozone in the atmosphere I assume you just want to waste time.

The point is it's proof that changing the composition of gasses in a amount of air can effect the heat retaining properties of that amount of air. Can we put that to bed now?

Please?

No, because you are using that to justify the warming of the Earth by magick carbon dioxide.
In both experiments, pressure buildup in sealed bottles enhances the temperature difference, often to a greater degree than the CO2 absorption itself in some of these parlor tricks.

Since you don't want to conduct the experiment with other gases to search for other absorption signatures, or use proper equipment, the only conclusion you can possibly reach is you don't know.

I suggest you study the effects of phenomenology on any experiment and the danger it poses to any experimental scientist.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
There are those who say a bee flying is a mathematical impossibility, instead of sitting down with them and doing sums its far easier to point to a bee, flying in defiance of their limited understanding of the laws of physics.


You are referring to laws of aerodynamics that were used in the early days (before 1940) and the bumblebee in particular. We understand a lot more the math about why something flies now, and the bumblebee has been accounted for in it. We also know a lot more about the bumblebee itself, including how such a tiny insect can develop the power necessary for flight in such a cold environment as early spring.

We crash airplanes less now due to defective design, too.

Do not discard mathematics. You may not be able to balance your checkbook, but the world still can be described by it. If you are going to claim the results of an experiment goes against the mathematics, you had better be prepared to show why, mathematically. If it can be done with the bumblebee, it can be done with your experiment.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 21:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Your the one claiming the experiment goes against the mathematics, and you also are claiming that the difference between the two chambers is to pressure differential as well, neither of which are true.
01-02-2016 10:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
Your the one claiming the experiment goes against the mathematics, and you also are claiming that the difference between the two chambers is to pressure differential as well, neither of which are true.

I am not claiming anything in the experiment goes against mathematics. YOU are.
As to the pressure difference, it IS true.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 16:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?
01-02-2016 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?


As to the pressure difference, go test it for yourself. Just be sure you are really testing the thing you think you are testing. As an experimental scientist, you leave a lot to be desired.

Changing the amount of CO2 in the air is changing a nothing into another nothing. CO2 is less than 0.04% of the air. It absorbs light at different frequencies (including infrared) and converts that to thermal energy. That energy dissipates with the rest. CO2 has increased by %0.002 of the atmosphere since 1960. Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then. Big hairy deal.

The effects you are trying to promote of the magick qualities of CO2 by using sloppy experimental techniques is what I challenge. Pointing out physical laws that conflict, sloppy reasoning, sloppy experimental technique, is not abuse. I do not spend my time insulting people like the CSIEA sort of thing you see here. Perhaps you have your own idea of what abuse is.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 22:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.
01-02-2016 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 22:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.
01-02-2016 22:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman.

More accurate wording is "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air can have measurable effects."

But you are EVADING the main point. Does changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air increase the air's temperature? Can I cook food without a stove by simply pumping enough CO2 into my kitchen?


.


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
01-02-2016 23:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.


I didn't calculate it. I told you where I got the estimate from. Go look it up yourself.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 23:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.


I didn't calculate it. I told you where I got the estimate from. Go look it up yourself.

Liar.
02-02-2016 01:41
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


,Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?


As to the pressure difference, go test it for yourself. Just be sure you are really testing the thing you think you are testing. As an experimental scientist, you leave a lot to be desired.

Changing the amount of CO2 in the air is changing a nothing into another nothing. CO2 is less than 0.04% of the air. It absorbs light at different frequencies (including infrared) and converts that to thermal energy. That energy dissipates with the rest. CO2 has increased by %0.002 of the atmosphere since 1960. Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then. Big hairy deal.

The effects you are trying to promote of the magick qualities of CO2 by using sloppy experimental techniques is what I challenge. Pointing out physical laws that conflict, sloppy r
easoning, sloppy experimental technique, is not abuse. I do not spend my time insulting people like the CSIEA sort of thing you see here. Perhaps you have your own idea of what abuse is.



Were those gentlemen I mentioned idiots, why can you spot the flaw in the whole thing while they could not?
02-02-2016 01:54
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


,Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?


As to the pressure difference, go test it for yourself. Just be sure you are really testing the thing you think you are testing. As an experimental scientist, you leave a lot to be desired.

Changing the amount of CO2 in the air is changing a nothing into another nothing. CO2 is less than 0.04% of the air. It absorbs light at different frequencies (including infrared) and converts that to thermal energy. That energy dissipates with the rest. CO2 has increased by %0.002 of the atmosphere since 1960. Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then. Big hairy deal.

The effects you are trying to promote of the magick qualities of CO2 by using sloppy experimental techniques is what I challenge. Pointing out physical laws that conflict, sloppy r
easoning, sloppy experimental technique, is not abuse. I do not spend my time insulting people like the CSIEA sort of thing you see here. Perhaps you have your own idea of what abuse is.



Were those gentlemen I mentioned idiots, why can you spot the flaw in the whole thing while they could not?
The US Airforce would have to be idiots too and their heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly work. And millions of scientists over the past 60 years or so would have to have been idiots too. Or.....2 anonymous laypeople called ITN and IB with no qualifications or background in science who rant on the internet are idiots. Tough choice eh



Edited on 02-02-2016 01:59
02-02-2016 03:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


,Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?


As to the pressure difference, go test it for yourself. Just be sure you are really testing the thing you think you are testing. As an experimental scientist, you leave a lot to be desired.

Changing the amount of CO2 in the air is changing a nothing into another nothing. CO2 is less than 0.04% of the air. It absorbs light at different frequencies (including infrared) and converts that to thermal energy. That energy dissipates with the rest. CO2 has increased by %0.002 of the atmosphere since 1960. Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then. Big hairy deal.

The effects you are trying to promote of the magick qualities of CO2 by using sloppy experimental techniques is what I challenge. Pointing out physical laws that conflict, sloppy r
easoning, sloppy experimental technique, is not abuse. I do not spend my time insulting people like the CSIEA sort of thing you see here. Perhaps you have your own idea of what abuse is.



Were those gentlemen I mentioned idiots, why can you spot the flaw in the whole thing while they could not?
The US Airforce would have to be idiots too and their heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly work. And millions of scientists over the past 60 years or so would have to have been idiots too. Or.....2 anonymous laypeople called ITN and IB with no qualifications or background in science who rant on the internet are idiots. Tough choice eh


What left field did that come from??? Heat seeking missiles are NOT looking for carbon dioxide!

I'll ignore your usual wild claims of scientists this time. It's just your usual garbage.

It's also you usual garbage to say we have no qualifications or background. You have no idea who we are or what our qualifications or backgrounds are.

It's also your usual fallacy to depend on such things.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 03:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


,Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?


As to the pressure difference, go test it for yourself. Just be sure you are really testing the thing you think you are testing. As an experimental scientist, you leave a lot to be desired.

Changing the amount of CO2 in the air is changing a nothing into another nothing. CO2 is less than 0.04% of the air. It absorbs light at different frequencies (including infrared) and converts that to thermal energy. That energy dissipates with the rest. CO2 has increased by %0.002 of the atmosphere since 1960. Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then. Big hairy deal.

The effects you are trying to promote of the magick qualities of CO2 by using sloppy experimental techniques is what I challenge. Pointing out physical laws that conflict, sloppy r
easoning, sloppy experimental technique, is not abuse. I do not spend my time insulting people like the CSIEA sort of thing you see here. Perhaps you have your own idea of what abuse is.



Were those gentlemen I mentioned idiots, why can you spot the flaw in the whole thing while they could not?

The gentlemen you mentioned are a non-factor for this conversation. They have nothing to do with your experimental technique.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 04:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.


I didn't calculate it. I told you where I got the estimate from. Go look it up yourself.

Liar.

Well, I looked on the DOE website and didn't find the figure you quoted. You're lying, aren't you? Tell me, why do you feel the need to lie about this?
02-02-2016 09:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog I suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of John tyndall.
Page 3 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
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Hold on. O2 and N2 do NOT absorb IR?915-09-2019 22:15
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
▲ 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