|
Post by icefisher on Aug 8, 2019 0:26:19 GMT
The Lord Speaketh! And He Speaketh Well.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 9, 2019 0:15:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 9, 2019 4:41:42 GMT
Looks professionally done, complex. Not sure what it proves ..... above my intellectual capacity.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 9, 2019 4:54:32 GMT
so a filament in a vacuum gets hotter than a filament in an inert gas. What is the revelation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2019 5:40:37 GMT
so a filament in a vacuum gets hotter than a filament in an inert gas. What is the revelation. Actually it is a revelation to some extent as it does instruct some on the greenhouse effect. Simple window technology will explain. Both of the experiments here are affected by backradiation from the containers they are in. One can only simulate the greenhouse effect if the experiment includes measuring the effect with the container skins at different temperatures. The greenhouse effect is quite real in a contained vacuum because there is no convection to cool the element, only radiation. Dr. Lindzen I think has the right idea that doesn't dispute the greenhouse effect but instead disputes its variability. I believe the greenhouse effect only gets one swing at the ball and that the effect stems from the first absorption I am sure that Lindzen is on board to some extent with that. Climate science wants to stack multiple layers of CO2 absorption in the atmosphere like static skins (like the flame inside boxes that are inside other boxes) and calculate the effect using I think some pretty weird parameters for convection that doesn't create too much warming but adjusts it to exactly what is desired. I have heard that its calibrated to estimates of solar intensity over the many ages earth has come through, though I have not seen a study on that. Lindzen though disputes the notion that this thermodynamic forcing is going to align in a static way and force the surface and that the atmosphere instead is too chaotic for that to occur. I agree wholeheartedly. It appears to me but I am still working on finding the proof that climate science moved to the multiple absorption theory because of not getting good enough results out of the single theory, e.g. its very near saturation. I know it has been discussed but haven't found the study yet. Bottom line with regards this experiment is that it is well known that by far the best insulation comes from quilted insulation blankets where the material has a very high reflectivity (above 90%) and the quilted pockets are rigid enough to contain a vacuum. They bundle this in multiple layers to achieve high insulation values in but a couple of inches of space. The insulation is extremely expensive and used in space craft where maximum insulation per lb and per cu inch of space taken up by it has an extremely high premium. p.s. let me put that in a bit better context. There is a greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are a necessary ingredient for that greenhouse effect to exist. The big questions are 1) are greenhouse gases sufficient in themselves to create the greenhouse effect; 2) how does the greenhouse effect vary.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 10, 2019 18:43:48 GMT
“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded. In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.” Nir Shaviv. From here: www.thegwpf.com/revealed-the-climate-story-forbes-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?preview=trueWorth reading, nothing new per se, but he succinctly overviews issues in a nice tidy manner. Lol, the day you give praise to an unknown person into the twittersphere and that person responds with a witty reply 😂 (yes i know i spelt you're incorrectly but, ya know.....no edit button 🤷♂️)
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 11, 2019 13:53:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 11, 2019 14:15:53 GMT
I didn't but I got one anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 11, 2019 15:17:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 11, 2019 17:47:28 GMT
Missouriboy, I missed this when you first posted it and asked for comments so here is my belated response. You have 2 questions. Number 1, are the results valid? The filament generates photons with wavelengths in the visible range. You know that because you can see the light. As we all know, CO2 molecules absorb only photons within a specific narrow wavelength band and as we all know that active bandwidth isn't even close to the visible range. So CO2 obviously will have no effect in this case. But that does not alter the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Then the shyster who ran the experiment used a vacuum in one case and not the other. Any cooling/heating effect will be due to that difference and say nothing about effect of CO2. So the results are valid with respect to the temperature differences between the 2 experiments, but the conclusion that CO2 is innocent of climate change is a hoax or fake news or whatever. As to the second question about funding, does it make sense to fund shysters in order to make the point that global warming is not the problem that shysters on the other side are making it out to be? My recommendation is shut down the funding of shysters on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 11, 2019 22:14:48 GMT
Missouriboy, I missed this when you first posted it and asked for comments so here is my belated response. You have 2 questions. Number 1, are the results valid? The filament generates photons with wavelengths in the visible range. You know that because you can see the light. As we all know, CO2 molecules absorb only photons within a specific narrow wavelength band and as we all know that active bandwidth isn't even close to the visible range. So CO2 obviously will have no effect in this case. But that does not alter the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Then the shyster who ran the experiment used a vacuum in one case and not the other. Any cooling/heating effect will be due to that difference and say nothing about effect of CO2. So the results are valid with respect to the temperature differences between the 2 experiments, but the conclusion that CO2 is innocent of climate change is a hoax or fake news or whatever. As to the second question about funding, does it make sense to fund shysters in order to make the point that global warming is not the problem that shysters on the other side are making it out to be? My recommendation is shut down the funding of shysters on both sides. I agree with your conclusion that this experiment does not exonerate CO2 from affecting the climate. But we should not lose the fact that negative feedback from straight up radiation transfer equations does exist. The vacuum shows the temperature with straight-up radiation transfer equations. The box with CO2 shows it with both radiation transfer equations (with intermediary absorption effects with CO2 as the medium) and convection. But this is only a static experiment. The Dr. RW Woods experiment showed the fact that you modify the intermediary equations you get a rather inconspicuous end result. But this is not a real world experiment. I think you can get a better answer with laboratory experiments mimicking the real world. Specifically, one should note that convection does not operate with the heat source is turned off like our heat source does each day. Of course turn the heat source off in this experiment you won't "see" the effects as all the action will be in the IR and there will be on visible radiation to under cut as we see with the addition of the CO2 gas. If you substitute CO2 with say nitrogen, I tend to think you would be hard pressed to "see" the difference. The other experiments still needed is an oscillating record of the light in the box as it is turned on and turned off in a regular rhythm of various configurations of vacuum, greenhouse gases, and non-greenhouse gases. Convection doesn't work in reverse thus it does not aid in cooling at night. From those facts alone I would consider at a minimum of cutting the total absorption of CO2 in half as a starting point, which would suggest 1.5c degrees warming. But the science community seeing how much butter alarmism has spread on their toast is only going to go kicking and screaming in that direction as 3C itself is obviously not enough to worry most people. Mankind has gone through much worse with much worse knowledge and technology at their disposal.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 12, 2019 11:32:14 GMT
Dissent is slowly appearing as cracks in the more mainstream media. "The fiction of manmade global warming By Anthony Bright-Paul There is absolutely no way that so-called greenhouse gas emissions can cause warming or generate heat. It is a fiction that is spread by such august bodies as the IPCC and promulgated by news channels like the BBC and CNN and is even taught to unsuspecting children in schools. Far from greenhouse gas emissions generating heat, precisely the opposite is true. What is the principal greenhouse gas? It is water vapor, which constitutes 90% of all greenhouse gases. How is it generated? As the infrared radiation from the Sun strikes the surface of the oceans, liquid saltwater is turned into a gas, water vapor, by evaporation. Evaporation is cooling, not warming -- every simpleton knows that."Much more at: www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_fiction_of_manmade_global_warming.html
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 12, 2019 12:21:23 GMT
Dissent is slowly appearing as cracks in the more mainstream media. "The fiction of manmade global warming By Anthony Bright-Paul There is absolutely no way that so-called greenhouse gas emissions can cause warming or generate heat. It is a fiction that is spread by such august bodies as the IPCC and promulgated by news channels like the BBC and CNN and is even taught to unsuspecting children in schools. Far from greenhouse gas emissions generating heat, precisely the opposite is true. What is the principal greenhouse gas? It is water vapor, which constitutes 90% of all greenhouse gases. How is it generated? As the infrared radiation from the Sun strikes the surface of the oceans, liquid saltwater is turned into a gas, water vapor, by evaporation. Evaporation is cooling, not warming -- every simpleton knows that."Much more at: www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_fiction_of_manmade_global_warming.htmlWhen the BBC and NYT start printing such articles, then the "end is nigh Nye". I pinched this from another Twitter account. Seems there is always another Churchill quote to be found. The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 12, 2019 13:20:54 GMT
Prof Andy Pitman admits droughts are not worse and not linked to climate changeIn June Professor Andy Pitman quietly dropped a bomb:
“…as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.”
“…there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.“
He’s admitting there’s never been a scientific basis for the endless climate drought scares? He went on to say that in Australia, droughts are not increasing, and there’s no drying trend in one hundred years of data. He’s also admitting the models can’t predict extremes in rain either. Where are the press releases?I had an extended, polite email exchange with Andy Pitman about ten years ago. It may have been the catalyst for his epiphany? I'm claiming credit. THINKS: I wonder if he still has the same email address.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 12, 2019 13:33:25 GMT
Prof Andy Pitman admits droughts are not worse and not linked to climate changeIn June Professor Andy Pitman quietly dropped a bomb:
“…as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.”
“…there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.“
He’s admitting there’s never been a scientific basis for the endless climate drought scares? He went on to say that in Australia, droughts are not increasing, and there’s no drying trend in one hundred years of data. He’s also admitting the models can’t predict extremes in rain either. Where are the press releases?I had an extended, polite email exchange with Andy Pitman about ten years ago. It may have been the catalyst for his epiphany? I'm claiming credit. THINKS: I wonder if he still has the same email address. I wonder if he still has tenure.
|
|