Posted by Todd on April 7, 2007, 3:02 pm
But it also demonstrates that it takes an enormous amount of CO2 to
retain a measurable amount of heat. Say you raised the concentration
of CO2 in the air by 1000x (instead of 270000x) and then ran your
experiment. What temperature increase do you see then? I predict it
isn't measurable. And if it is, you are still left with the question,
"what would man have to do to increase CO2 concentration in the air
1000x." I don't think there's anything he could do to achieve that
When that 800 page report came out, I read the section on the steel
industry contribution to CO2. Besides the fact that its contribution
was down 15% over the study period, it also did things like estimating
the contribution of carbon arcs used for heating. They've really got
to be scrambling when they go to that extent.
I didn't notice anything in the report about how much more forest we
have now than we had 100 years ago and how that's eating up CO2 at a
prodigious rate and spewing out O2. Is O2 a greenhouse gas?
And is this going to affect the soft drink industry? The CO2 they use
in their product that eventually gets into the atmosphere must be
scaring you into apoplexy.
Can we pinpoint when all this greenhouse gas nonsense started and
where? It's like the endangered species baloney we went through
before. People with an objective (slowing down growth?) look for a
tactic through which to achieve the objective (putting up obstacles to
growth). Whoever came up with this one doesn't seem to have been too
bright ... but no problem, they control the media.
What's amazing is how effective they can be. People were mindlessly
going around grieving over species going away and now they're
mindlessly going around worrying about the temperature in their back
yard going up 1 degree.
The experiment you cite certainly doesn't support that statement. This
is another characteristic I look for when onslaughts like this
greenhouse gas stuff envelop us. They're filled with empty phrases
like "but we all know" and "the supporting literature is overwhelming"
and then they give no references to support those claims ... and none
can be found.
It really is a conspiracy. And it's possible to find out where
conspiracies start. That's where we should be focusing our attention.
Who's behind all this ... and why? What do they really want?
But you keep ignoring the fact that you haven't shown "CO2 increases
retained heat". It's identical to an experiment showing water causes
death ... when you increase consumption of it by 270,000 times. So
No. It shows that an enormous increase of CO2 yields a tiny increase
in heat retention ... if it even shows that. So what? We're talking
about a tiny increase in CO2 ... if that?
You don't think 270,000 times is already an enormous amount? What is
an enormous amount? If the current CO2 concentration in air is 0.035 %
or whatever it is, what must it be raised to to have this enormous
Posted by Derek Broughton on April 7, 2007, 6:00 pm
Because you can't predict exact amounts of heat gain from such a tiny
model - what you _can_ predict is that the gain occurs. A better model
could provide "quantitative" results.
Over a day? A week? Of course, gains from the actual increase in CO2
aren't measurable. Over a year or a decade, it begins to be measurable.
Over a century, it's obvious.
There isn't. That's not the problem.
Of course you didn't - where is this "more forest"? There's less in my
country (Canada), there's less in the Amazon basin - what country is
significantly adding to the world's forests?
No, why would it? The whole question of CO2 is all about how it's produced.
If it comes from renewable sources, it's been recently sequestered from the
atmosphere, and is just going back where it came from. If it comes from
petroleum, it's returning carbon to the atmosphere that was originally
deposited millions of years ago - when the Earth couldn't have supported
So no species are dieing?
Mindlessly? I mind very much the loss of species in world-wide fisheries.
I'll survive 1 degree - I rather doubt you will.
No, you just keep dismissing any experimentation that does show it and cite
vague "common sense" arguments for why it can't be so.
Posted by Tony Wesley on April 7, 2007, 8:46 pm
Because they don't correlate to the mass of the earth or the size of
the layer of CO2.
On the contrary. This was a layer of only what looks to me about 1
1/2 feet. Call it 2 feet. Whereas the Earth's atmosphere is about
50,000 feet thick. So, you let out a factor of 25,000 in your
Say you raised the concentration
And increased the thickness of tbe layer by a factor of 25,000?
Also note that the experiment ran for 20 minutes. As compared to the
century or so of increased CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.
About 4000 hours per year of sunlight strike the earth. So we have
4,000 compare to 1/3. Did you remember to add another factor of
12,000 into your predictions?
None of this is any good for modeling the earth. You can't take a
tiny model and expand it a factor of thousands in multiple dimensions
and use it for predictions.
Nope. It's a trivial amount. It's only a foot or two of gas at
normal atmospheric pressure. It's a tiny amount. And yet it has a
measurable effect of the temperature.
The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 trillion metric
A change of 1 parts per million is 5 billion tons of CO2.
CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to
about 375 ppm in 2005. 42 ppm of the atmosphere is over 200 billion
That's an enormous amount.
Posted by Todd on April 5, 2007, 4:45 pm
Doesn't this experiment show that an increase of CO2 of 270,000%
yields an increase of temperature of 15%? If so, and we increase the
atmospheric CO2 by say 1000% to 30.7%, wouldn't we then expect an
increase of temperature of 1/270 * 15% of 40C or 0.02C? Should we
really be scared?
Posted by BobG on April 5, 2007, 5:43 pm
I'd like the experiment a lot better with air on one side, and O2/N2
mix with no CO2 on the other side. After all, thats what the big
foofoo is all about right Tony?