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

spot wrote: No the experiment proves CO2 can affect temperature

spot wrote: how did they do this one then?

spot wrote: explain how a thermal blanket works then?

spot wrote: I think I see your problem your suffering from Paranoia.

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.

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.

spot wrote:
A thermal blanket works by backradiation which violates the laws of physics according to you.

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?

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!"

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.

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.

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?

spot wrote:no need to define it mathematically I have shown experimentally that your objections are silly

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.

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.


.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.