Northwest Passage

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No it wouldn't. It would require two tanks of air. One with 0.025% CO2 and one with, oh let's go wild, 4% CO2.



Or are you trying to suggest that CO2 has magical properties when in the atmosphere that it doesn't have in any other container?

And what are you going to use what for a container? It has to be completely transparent to ir because otherwise it will warm the interior contents, it also needs to be a complete insulator so it didn't conduct heat from the exterior or from the interior. And this is to demonstrate what??? It also already known that Co2 absorbs ir. Are you suggesting that in small quantities it behaves differently (non linearly)? The experiment would shed no new light on the existing science. You couldn't learn how much warming to expect in the atmosphere because you would need to reproduce the entire atmospheric column of air including the heat sink which is outer space and of course you couldn't really model water vapor as it behaves in the atmosphere. As I said 150 years ago the basic spectra of CO2 was learned. There was enough information 50 years to produce a very detailed model of the top of atmosphere emission model which matched the observed emission (I think this was done as part of developing heat seeking missiles) which the graph I provided. Today there is a extremely detailed spectra of all the atmospheric gases. https://hitran.org/

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

And what are you going to use what for a container? It has to be completely transparent to ir because otherwise it will warm the interior contents, it also needs to be a complete insulator so it didn't conduct heat from the exterior or from the interior. And this is to demonstrate what??? It also already known that Co2 absorbs ir. Are you suggesting that in small quantities it behaves differently (non linearly)? The experiment would shed no new light on the existing science. You couldn't learn how much warming to expect in the atmosphere because you would need to reproduce the entire atmospheric column of air including the heat sink which is outer space and of course you couldn't really model water vapor as it behaves in the atmosphere. As I said 150 years ago the basic spectra of CO2 was learned. There was enough information 50 years to produce a very detailed model of the top of atmosphere emission model which matched the observed emission (I think this was done as part of developing heat seeking missiles) which the graph I provided. Today there is a extremely detailed spectra of all the atmospheric gases. https://hitran.org/

Ummm, in reference to the bold highlight above, that fundamentally a 0.013% increase in CO2 content for 0.028% to 0.041% included in a gaseous composition comprised of of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% argon produces a significant temperature increase in a controlled experiment.





After all, if this cannot be demonstrated then all the theories under the sun, including the lapse theory you're suggesting, don't hold water if the basic mechanism doesn't play ball.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ummm, in reference to the bold highlight above, that fundamentally a 40% increase in CO2 content for 0.028% to 0.041% of total atmospheric volume in a gaseous composition comprised of of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% argon produces a significant temperature increase in a controlled experiment.

FTFY. You're welcome.

After all, if this cannot be demonstrated then all the theories under the sun, including the lapse theory you're suggesting, don't hold water if the basic mechanism doesn't play ball.

I did previously ask what planet you were proposing to use for this experiment, but that was silly of me. You intend to use this one, and the experiment is well under way. Know anyone in Paris you could call for some observations?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

FTFY. You're welcome.

I did previously ask what planet you were proposing to use for this experiment, but that was silly of me. You intend to use this one, and the experiment is well under way. Know anyone in Paris you could call for some observations?

ask the people in Spain if they need a heavier coat . Or how about most of the rest of Europe .

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/anal...019072518&fh=6

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ask the people in Spain

Ok. https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/24...67_487353.html

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok. https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/24...67_487353.html

you mean that little tiny corner in the north east on the med that may as well be se France

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

FTFY. You're welcome.

I did previously ask what planet you were proposing to use for this experiment, but that was silly of me. You intend to use this one, and the experiment is well under way. Know anyone in Paris you could call for some observations?

For those of us that are a bit slow, ahem, the point isn't European heatwaves or observed warming it's about demonstrating a direct correlation of CO2 to warming. Should be pretty simple regardless of what planet you want to conduct it on.

I could write a book on the holes in AGW theory and one day I just might. The inability to demonstrate the CO2 greenhouse effect at atmospheric concentrations with a simple "experiment" is but one of many glaring holes associated with the whole concept of AGW.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The findings by this latest research are not new. The idea that hot periods and cold periods in the last few thousand years were mostly local, not global, as been at least partly established before. See below. What is new is the extra rigor that this new analysis brings to the table. But even this more advanced study is not the end-all and be-all. One of the reviewers in the article that I posted stated that they looked forward to further research that included more data from the southern hemisphere.

This type of article, which has advanced our knowledge, and has not overturned previously-held understandings, is exactly what one would expect if the basic AGW-paradigm is correct, but not totally complete.

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

I think you might be getting a little carried away with how NBC News "headlined" these research results. How about also posting some critiques? You mean the peer review process didn't uncover ANY? Seriously, what about all the scientific critique we've seen over the years challenging the use of ice cores & tree rings to accurately measure temperatures before accurate thermometers were introduced in the late 19th century? And if one of the basic premises the study claims to shed light on is that previous warm periods were regional whereas the current one is global, then surely the locales where the core samples were taken would be scrutinized. You and I certainly have no way of judging, so we need to rely on scientists who endorse the research, but also the skeptics who may be influenced by it (or not). I did mention skeptics from the actual scientific community and not whoever writes the material for skepticalscience.com, right? I know the similarities in the names can be confusing, so just making sure.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

The heat absorbing properties of CO2 and other gas were first measured in a lab by Fourier in 1840. You can do those measurements at home.

https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teache...green/home.htm

To me a dramatic illustration used the earth’s atmosphere as a lab. The heat emission spectra of the earth was calculated and then compared to measurement taken from space. They match almost exactly. I have posted this before. The measured and calculated are shifted vertically because otherwise they would overlap. The dip in the graph labelled CO2 is the energy absorbed in the atmosphere by CO2. I think this was done 50-60 years ago. I don’t think any credible scientist denies that higher levels of CO2 results in the planet get warmer. How much warmer is obviously debated a lot. Attachment 196552

Don't you mean there's not much dispute that higher levels of CO2 can (as opposed to will) result in the planet getting warmer? Shouldn't use of the word will be reserved for controlled laboratory conditions? Or am I wrong? (I admit I'm not completely following your discussion with Reef). And yes, the "how much" issue is debated a lot, and I would suggest is really the crux of the entire debate when we consider potential policy options.

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Hummm... That is bit of stretch to get from the home experiment to a conclusion on degree rise for the earth [emoji3]. Perhaps the concept of a amount of time (20 minutes vs 100 years) is significant, perhaps the amount of energy used is important, perhaps the insulation of the container matters. And yes the CO2 concentration is important. The experiment I shared with you only demonstrated that co2 absorbs infrared, nothing more.

But you earlier stated the relationship between CO2 & warming was linear, and therefore predictable if not undeniable. Did I misunderstand?

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The inability to demonstrate the CO2 greenhouse effect at atmospheric concentrations with a simple "experiment" is but one of many glaring holes associated with the whole concept of AGW.

I'm a bit confused. I think you're saying such an experiment is impossible to perform, and not that it could be done but would fail to show results which support Allen's propositions. Either way, I would agree that, as the underlying foundation for the entire theory behind the A in AGW, there then has to be a different explanation for GW.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

But you earlier stated the relationship between CO2 & warming was linear, and therefore predictable if not undeniable. Did I misunderstand?



.

actually it is not a linear relationship it is actually logarithmic
https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2018...nmade-warming/

How do we know this? Because the UN’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

For those of us that are a bit slow, ahem, the point isn't European heatwaves or observed warming it's about demonstrating a direct correlation of CO2 to warming. Should be pretty simple regardless of what planet you want to conduct it on.

I could write a book on the holes in AGW theory and one day I just might. The inability to demonstrate the CO2 greenhouse effect at atmospheric concentrations with a simple "experiment" is but one of many glaring holes associated with the whole concept of AGW.

The Internet is thick with references to this. A few more. Maybe start with this one from 1861. Just because you can't demonstrate it in your back shed doesn't mean it isn't understood.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Don't you mean there's not much dispute that higher levels of CO2 can (as opposed to will) result in the planet getting warmer? Shouldn't use of the word will be reserved for controlled laboratory conditions? Or am I wrong? (I admit I'm not completely following your discussion with Reef). And yes, the "how much" issue is debated a lot, and I would suggest is really the crux of the entire debate when we consider potential policy options.



But you earlier stated the relationship between CO2 & warming was linear, and therefore predictable if not undeniable. Did I misunderstand?



I'm a bit confused. I think you're saying such an experiment is impossible to perform, and not that it could be done but would fail to show results which support Allen's propositions. Either way, I would agree that, as the underlying foundation for the entire theory behind the A in AGW, there then has to be a different explanation for GW.

As to will vs can. It is will, the only question is how much. Even Spencer says will.

In the linear question on the *experiment", Reefs agrees that CO2 absorbs IR at higher concentrations but seems to disagree that it can absorb it at low concentrations. Physics has the Beer-Lambert law*which is the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorbing species. Therefore if Reef accepts it absorbs IR at higher concentrations, it must also do so at lower concentrations if he accepts basic physics.

As to the experiment being impossible, I really don't know the answer to that, I do know it is pointless. I further know that the graph I provided demonstrates exactly his question . What I can't answer is how much warming but the consensus is 1-3C, even apparently Newhaul is on board with that (he calls it natural warming [emoji3]).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

As to will vs can. It is will, the only question is how much. Even Spencer says will.

In the linear question on the *experiment", Reefs agrees that CO2 absorbs IR at higher concentrations but seems to disagree that it can absorb it at low concentrations. Physics has the Beer-Lambert law*which is the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorbing species. Therefore if Reef accepts it absorbs IR at higher concentrations, it must also do so at lower concentrations if he accepts basic physics.

As to the experiment being impossible, I really don't know the answer to that, I do know it is pointless. I further know that the graph I provided demonstrates exactly his question . What I can't answer is how much warming but the consensus is 1-3C, even apparently Newhaul is on board with that (he calls it natural warming [emoji3]).

actually the warming was.85℃ per century and we are now cooling again . Its natural and cyclical.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

As to will vs can. It is will, the only question is how much. Even Spencer says will.

OK, Spencer says will, but theorizes that it's producing added warming that's not consequential. Others theorize the added CO2 is responsible for all the warming. Others still (from both camps) say it's a combo of human CO2 and natural factors that are responsible for the warming. But I don't think anyone's been able to actually measure it. I thought you were suggesting that there was a more direct, measurable relationship between CO2 & atmospheric warming, i.e. add more of one and you necessarily get a predictable, measurable amount of the other. Wasn't that what you were representing your graph to be showing? Obviously not or there would be no question about "how much." Am I getting any closer to understanding what you've been saying?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The Internet is thick with references to this. A few more. Maybe start with this one from 1861. Just because you can't demonstrate it in your back shed doesn't mean it isn't understood.

"What" isn't understood? You seem to still be misunderstanding what the issue actually is, and your cites appear to simply confirm what most have already long agreed on. But what we're discussing now is the more critical part of the equation that apparently remains unproven & unknown. Your misunderstanding also explains why you are always stressing the undisputed increase in CO2 levels (the 40%), wrongly assuming this is enough on its own to "prove" that all/most/significant warming is the necessary result. It certainly could be, but such cause & effect has not been proven, nor does it appear to be well understood. Hence the controversy over "how much." Or do you still think that this is mere gymnastics conjured up by conservatives & fueled by corrupt oil co. money to muddy the waters?

This goes back to the problem of relying on media accounts & secondary sources that are all biased in one direction. It leads to erroneous beliefs that human-derived CO2 must be the one & only culprit, and anyone who disagrees "denies" the basic "science." What else, after all, could it possibly be? The next step is believing that, since the cause of the "warming" has been "established," then any events which appear alarming are also necessarily the result of aberrant warming, which in turn is the result of human-derived CO2. What could possibly be wrong with this logic? Nothing I can think of, except the little problem of the actual science not having proved these connections. But why let such details get in the way when there's a planet that needs saving?!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The Internet is thick with references to this. A few more. Maybe start with this one from 1861. Just because you can't demonstrate it in your back shed doesn't mean it isn't understood.

No it's not. It's full or theories or 100% CO2 experiments. IR absorption diagrams do squat. I could produce an IR absorption diagram of H2O and provide a theory on how it could turn Earth into Venus II using exactly the same principle used to explain CO2 greenhouse. CO2 a forcer? H2O a feedback? I could have a Zippo as forcer and a tanker of gas as a feedback, and once I apply the "forcer" to the "feedback" I'm pretty sure the "forcer" would soon be of little consequence. Ditto for H2O ever since snowball Earth ended.



And to be frank, if certain elements of the global community want trillions spent on wild goose mitigation, they should provide exactly the type of demonstration I questioned.

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

As to will vs can. It is will, the only question is how much. Even Spencer says will.

In the linear question on the *experiment", Reefs agrees that CO2 absorbs IR at higher concentrations but seems to disagree that it can absorb it at low concentrations. Physics has the Beer-Lambert law*which is the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorbing species. Therefore if Reef accepts it absorbs IR at higher concentrations, it must also do so at lower concentrations if he accepts basic physics.

As to the experiment being impossible, I really don't know the answer to that, I do know it is pointless. I further know that the graph I provided demonstrates exactly his question . What I can't answer is how much warming but the consensus is 1-3C, even apparently Newhaul is on board with that (he calls it natural warming [emoji3]).

Well. well. well. Isn't that all my question was indirectly asking? Whilst you may have "no doubts" (or do you?) others need to be convinced.