 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 586/600) |
|
newf
|
JAN 03, 02:38 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
There was 1 video that I came across on youtube.
It featured 2 drinking cups. 1 with air and the other
co2. But it did not demonstrate heat absorption or
emission. It did show how placing c02 gas between
an ir heat source and an ir camera reduces the visibility
of the ir heat source.
The video presented the following problems for me
1. did not show co2 causing a temperature increase
2. to see the difference in ir visibility the camera had to
be move so that the line of sight was through the top and
bottom of the cup. the view through the sides of the cups
were exactly the same and both blocked ir from the camera.
Had he simply left it on the desk and measured the temperature
inside the cups, I would have accepted that. I'll post a link to the video
when I located it again. Oddly it was among the first search return
using my phone but no where when is searched from my pc.
Added : video found
|
|
https://www.princeton.edu/g...Sampling/climate.xml
Additional Links
Princeton Environmental Institute (http://www.princeton.edu/pei/)
Princeton Environmental Institute, Grand Challenges program (http://www.princeton.edu/grandchallenges/)
NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory, GMD Carbon Cycle Gases Group (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/index.html). Access CO2 data and information on the NOAA greenhouse gas study program.
Scripps CO2 program and Ralph Keeling’s web site (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/home/index.php) Access CO2 data, view results, access biography of Charles David Keeling.
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/) Access data on fossil fuel combustion rates and other carbon cycle data.
NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Program (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/). View descriptions and data dealing with ocean carbon cycle research.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) Access reports giving authoritative information about global climate change[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-03-2017).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 03, 08:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by newf:
Here's a bunch if links to keep you busy for a while......
|
|
No thanks
I tried 2 of those and found no experiment that demonstrates the claim.
That's not to say one does not exist deep in that haystack.
Tell you what,
It's your haystack and you claim there is a needle in there. Dive right on in there and pull it out for us.
I'll bet there is not one in there or you would have used it.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 03, 10:46 PM
|
|
Here's what I do whenever I want to view a video demonstration of the Greenhouse Effect 
1. Go to YouTube(.com)
https://www.youtube.com
2. Use the Search field at the top and enter "greenhouse effect demonstration"
3. Select from the YouTube videos that are retrieved. After two sponsored links (Ads), there are more than a dozen--and that's without using the Next Page function at the bottom to see even more. They range from just over a minute to less than 10 minutes of video. Here's one (just 3 minutes) from cable TV's well known episodic series, "The Mythbusters".
Another one, from Bill Nye, the "Science Guy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8
From the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Another one, from MIT's (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Office of Digital Learning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 03, 11:54 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Here's what I do whenever I want to view a video demonstration of the Greenhouse Effect
|
|
I have seen those and many more. And when I don't know the answer, just admit it instead of presenting a baffling amount af BS.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 04, 02:45 AM
|
|
What is it about these YouTube video demonstrations of the greenhouse effect that leaves you with doubts or unanswered questions?
You seem to be "hung up" on the one aspect of this that no one else with any perspective or opinion about it even disputes: That CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases (starting with CH4 or methane) absorb more energy when they are illuminated with visible light and reemit more of that energy in the IR or thermal energy spectrum, than the other major natural molecules of the atmosphere, which are N2 and O2.
The underlying reason resides within the realm of quantum physics. It's about the difference, at the quantum level, between molecular bonds that are symmetric (O2, N2) and molecular bonds that are asymmetric (CO2, CH4). The asymmetric bonds have a magnetic moment and that is what causes these "greenhouse" molecules to absorb more energy from sunlight and reemit this energy in the IR or heat energy wavelengths.
Respecting the complexity of all of the natural systems and cycles that determine the earth's climate, there is no possibility that any laboratory experiment or series of laboratory experiments could ever prove (or disprove) the reality of man-made global warming. There has to be a collaboration, using different and independent lines of evidence, including many direct observations of the earth and its systems, from weather stations, satellites, subsurface ocean sensors and the like. The "laboratory" for climate researchers is no less than the entire planet and its atmosphere and exosphere.
I hope that this--from just a few posts back--did not go by you without your taking notice.
February 25, 2015
Greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules measured directly for the first time ever, using laboratory instruments that measured the amount of heat energy that was being reflected back to the earth's surface from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
The significance of this experiment is that it provided direct, empirical confirmation of the greenhouse effect of CO2, in a completely natural setting, to confirm what had already long ago been demonstrated in any number of laboratory experiments that were conducted with small samples of CO2-enriched air, confined in flasks or test tubes.
As reported by Becky Oskin, for LiveScience online:
http://www.livescience.com/...ect-measured-us.html
The same results were also reported online, with just a little more detail, by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2...use-effect-increase/
?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-04-2017).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
JAN 04, 03:07 AM
|
|
Those 2 videos are intended support co2 related
warming. Yet It visually offers more evidence to the
contrary.
Look at what the camera is reporting :
No increase in temperature (would occur w/absorption)
No increase heat emission (re-radiated after absorption)
The camera is telling you that it can not see heat
from the flame or hand when viewing through
a wall of CO2.
This stupid video - again is another example
No it doesn't have CO2. It has ice water. Look at it. you can
not see even a flicker of IR (heat) from his hand through that
bowl. Unless you think his in missing a hand and merely supporting
that bowl on a nub.....
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the colder ice water is
absorbing heat. And it will continue to absorb heat until it's temperature
is greater than the air temperature around it.
You guys and the sources you have linked to have all claimed that
CO2
->O adsorbs Inferred radiation
-><-O adsorbs and re-emits Inferred radiation
Those videos support something that look more
like Deflection and reflection.
-><- I O I <-->
Now if you're saying that CO2 is reflecting inferred back to it's source
and therefor deflecting it from a straight path, I certainly agree with that idea.
if it has the ability to deflect and/or reflect IR back to it's source then it becomes
hard for me to accept that the blanked is biased as to where the heat IR comes from.
|
|
|
|
rogergarrison
|
JAN 04, 08:32 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
proof is easy to see in real time
but in the current cycle temps are up
not just the air but ocean and land also
and the sea-ice at the poles is dropping in area
people who can see the problem realize the CO2 increase is why
and the solution is to limit the CO2 output
|
|
According to NASA most recent study....
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.
the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers)."
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 04, 05:04 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rogergarrison:
According to NASA most recent study....
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.
the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers)."
|
|
your Oct. 7, 2014 report is two YEARS out of date as are the numbers that are even older
climate is a moving target
do try to keep up to date
both poles are loosing ice
do to the warmer oceans
do to CO2
|
|
|
|
Tony Kania
|
JAN 04, 05:34 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
your Oct. 7, 2014 report is two YEARS out of date as are the numbers that are even older
climate is a moving target
do try to keep up to date
both poles are loosing ice
... |
|
Roger's may be, but a quick search produces stats from NASA as of 2016. Easy to find. You know this.
Liberals are a moving target. Always changing history.
Both Poles are gaining ice. It is a planet. Much bigger than you and I. Chill out, so to speak and have a beer.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 04, 05:56 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Tony Kania:
Roger's may be, but a quick search produces stats from NASA as of 2016. Easy to find. You know this.
Liberals are a moving target. Always changing history.
Both Poles are gaining ice. It is a planet. Much bigger than you and I. Chill out, so to speak and have a beer. |
|
no ''both poles are gaining ice'' is NOT TRUE
CLICK ON THE PICTURE
|
|
|
|