Beam me to Planet Gore !
What does that say about Carl Sagan’s “Super Greenhouse(TM)” theory which supposedly explains the 900F surface temperatures on Venus??
I notice there’s no “link” on this one. Can you give us a link so we can link other blogs to it?
Thanks
the link doesn’t work
the link doesn’t work
Link http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
Ping for later
Interesting that the CRU scammers have only tried to show the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature and had to resort to faking data to fit their model. However even if there was correlation that does not mean causation. This Woods experiment pretty well demonstrates that even if there were a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (which there isn’t) there is no model to show the physics of how CO2 traps the heat.
Bumping...
That should provide pretty good debunking ammunition against the Greenie Meany Wienies.
Thanks for posting and if you have a ping list, add me to it. I want kids to KNOW CO2 has nothing to do with GLOBULL warming.
As for infrared radiation, Gerlich and Tscheuschner agree with earlier studies that water vapor is responsible for most of the IR absorption in the Earth's atmosphere. Thus, any infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide represents only a tiny part of the full IR spectrum and is affected little by raising CO2 concentration.Gerlich and Tscheuschner state without equivocation that there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect which explains the relevant physical phenomena. They call the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases "deliberate misnomers" and a "myth beyond physical reality" and conclude:
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
Guys, take it from a physicist. This experiment is a scam. The counter to false information from the GCC crowd is not our own false information, but scientific truth, and reproducing this kind of nonsense just makes FR out to be a bunch of no-nothing kooks.
Trapping of infrared radiation by the sky, clouds, etc. is important to the heat balance of the earth. That has never been questioned except by this imbecile of an "infrared" expert who is no expert on anything.
Infrared light within the biosphere does not come, principally, from the sun, and so "filtering" it out with glass will do nothing. Finding a meaningful representation of the spectrum is somewhat hard, but here is the best I could find:
Please ignore the stuff about indium nitride bandgaps which as to do with solar cell development and is irrelevant to this discussion. This graph plots photons per unit area, per time. The energy in any color band is obtained my multiplying the flux in this graph by the energy of the photons (shown at the top in electron volts), and when the multiplication is done will be seen to peak in the blue. The amount of energy from below the red (infrared) is very small.
Most infrared in the biosphere is the result not of infrared from the sun, but of the reradiation from the earth of visible and ultraviolet light that is absorbed. Once reradiated, the longer infrared which represent heat energy is reflected by the glass in a green house, hence the green house effect. Because the reflection away from the glass above a greenhouse in this experiment does not affect the visible light incident on the green house, the extra sheet of glass has no effect. Indeed, this idiot does not even understand that the greenhouse itself would already reflect incident infrared from the sun before it entered the greenhouse, and so the extra sheet of glass is superfluous.
CO2 doesn't reflect IR.
This idiot does not even understand the concept of "opacity." Diffuse CO2 does not act as a mirror to IR. It acts as an impenitrable fog. It is like looking at a cloud backlit by the sun. The cloud is plenty bright enough reflecting sunlight back to the observer, even though the reflection is not specular, like a mirror.
The "greenhouse" effect is a real effect and CO2, and other greenhouse gases (including methane and clouds), are very important in keeping the earth warm. No one, besides this idiot, has ever questioned that.
The question is whether human generated CO2 will have a significant impact on climate, given all the other sources of variability of climate. It is this hypothesis that skeptics doubt. That CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas has never been questioned by any knowledgeable scientist.
I am curious how does this experiment disprove the theory?
It states clearly that the salt window box heated up faster, ergo higher temps. It is clear based on the Stephan-Boltzman law that a doubling of CO2 may increase the temps a degree or so.
The question is the effect of the forcing’s, do they create a runaway catastrophic event? Sane people who know that we have had higher temps and higher CO2 levels in the past know that the forcings become negative. If they didn’t, we would have become a Venus years ago.
This guy is one of those customary lunatics, the author, not Bohr, I mean, that you get at any scientific conclave. They are like Shakespearean fools. They know all the words, and spout nonsense. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "this isn't even wrong."
Don't post HS like this. It makes Freepers look like lunatics. It makes this place a big soft fat target for anyone who does know a little bit who happens to be on the other side.
The converse of a scientific fraud is not your own scientific fraud. It is careful analysis, data, and being scientifically correct.
