Green house gas demonstration faked!?!?

[brenthutch 383]

Apparently a simple experiment to demonstrate the green house effect of CO2 wasn’t simple enough. To get the claimed results, the experiment had to be faked and the results photo shopped.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

It is this type of chicanery that is common place in the climate science community that calls into question their motives. I just attended a seminar by Dr. Michael Mann at Penn State and noticed that he dropped the last 5 years of data off of one of his slides. One may say that this was just an oversight, however considering that the last 5 years of observed climate data has diverged greatly from the computer models he was touting, one may come to a less generous conclusion.

[RonD1120 58]

Overall it is about power and control.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Overall it is about power and control.

I reckon that you're right.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[brenthutch 383]

It is so obvious that it is about control, but there are some well intentioned and ostensibly intelligent people who cant see the obvious truth. Or perhaps they feel that there is a larger truth where facts don’t carry any weight. Bill, Kalland, Amazon, Quade, etc etc, could you help shine some light on this matter?

[rhaig 0]

Does this mean Al Gore is a fake and making tons of $$ on the global warming? Well yes, but we all knew that. Does this mean that global warming is fake? Well, reading through the article, one of the very first things noted by the author is that this experiment will not parallel "the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere".

Quote

Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video

He goes on to show that the jar with more CO2 takes longer to heat up from direct conductive transmission of heat (not surprising as there is more mass to heat up -- CO2 is denser than air).

--
Rob

[brenthutch 383]

Agreed, but why did Nye have to fake his results. He clearly stated that the CO2 jar would heat faster and achieve a higher temp, both demonstrably false. It is this subterfuge that adds more heat than light to the climate change debate. Why are the lies necessary?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

It is so obvious that it is about control, but there are some well intentioned and ostensibly intelligent people who cant see the obvious truth. Or perhaps they feel that there is a larger truth where facts don’t carry any weight. Bill, Kalland, Amazon, Quade, etc etc, could you help shine some light on this matter?

Nope, but I get a warm wet feel up my back when every sol called green issues and money get mentioned... and I don't like people pissing on me and expecting me to pay for the privilege - I'm weird like that.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[muff528 3]

Quote

..... adds more heat than light....

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Apparently a simple experiment to demonstrate the green house effect of CO2 wasn’t simple enough. To get the claimed results, the experiment had to be faked and the results photo shopped.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

It is this type of chicanery that is common place in the climate science community that calls into question their motives. I just attended a seminar by Dr. Michael Mann at Penn State and noticed that he dropped the last 5 years of data off of one of his slides. One may say that this was just an oversight, however considering that the last 5 years of observed climate data has diverged greatly from the computer models he was touting, one may come to a less generous conclusion.

I did some reading on this. Apparently the historical factors used to indicate global temperatures are not tracking in the last decade or so. In order to maintain that those historical factors are accurate, global warming enthusiasts just delete the data that doesn't support their theory. I think it's called, "hide the decline'.

I imagine human activity is having some effect on the environment. It's just near impossible to say what that effect is or what to do about it when people are twisting facts to fit their theories.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[headoverheels 291]

Quote

Overall it is about power and control.

Just like all religions.

[shah269 0]

Don't argue with scientific facts.
CO2 is a green house gas...the chemistry of the past 200 years proves it.
Furthermore it's nothing compared to Methane.

Unlike god, you can prove chemistry over and over and over again.
And if the results come out differently we can go back and ask why.

In the mean time, use less energy, save money and buy skydives.

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Don't argue with scientific facts.
CO2 is a green house gas...the chemistry of the past 200 years proves it.
Furthermore it's nothing compared to Methane.

Unlike god, you can prove chemistry over and over and over again.
And if the results come out differently we can go back and ask why.

In the mean time, use less energy, save money and buy skydives.

Not arguing anything, just pointing out the outcome of a simple science experiment BTW I can't recall saying anything about methane.

[shah269 0]

Well I'm just saying is that the science experiment may have been off.
The results may not be as dramatic as stated in the infomercial.
But I hate to say it, but your average person has the IQ of a twice boiled carrot and needs things to be exaggerated for them to notice and not say really dumb shit such as "Well maybe one bulb was newer than the other".

A simple 1C increase per year for 10 years would mean nothing to you and I however when you look at it globally it is huge!

And that's where the methane comes from. You see vast quantities of it are stored in permafrost. And as that permafrost well...defrosts that very volatile highly efficient green house gas escapes so that the system starts to spin out of control.

The CO2 is the dry bushes which the fire is made of...by it self....nothing. the Methane on the other hand is the dumb ass who trows a 5 gallon bucket of lighter fluid on it.

All in all not good for you or me or the environment.

However if you consume less energy not only will you be saving the future but you will be saving what matters to you right now....$$$ which you can use to do things you want to do.

Thus stop seeing it as any one telling you to cut back, look at it as a means to save yourself money!

And who doesn't want to save money?

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[angle228 0]

There are many issues in the media that should be debated feverishly, Global Warming is not one of them.

The data is there and there is enough of it that you can throw out ALL flawed research techniques and ALL (if there really is any) dishonest or exaggerated results and there would still be conclusive evidence to support its existence. I could go to Google and show you some of it, or, you can go to the nearest university and dig out some journal articles on the subject (Go sit next to a science geek and ask him to interpret the data and tell you what it means). You will see that probably every bit of "evidence you have see is dumbed down to an 8th grade reading level. It's like watching black and white TV, it’s just not the same.
The most brilliant minds of this century all agree on the subject! Do you think you are smarter?

If that does not do it for you here is a little bit of logic for you. How many hands are in this proverbial research pot? MILLIONS there are millions of people working on/involved in this research. If the science community was lying about all of this do you really think that they would/cloud all be silenced? The few that have come out to give negative arguments have been found to be about as diluted as those who don't believe in global warming.

SO, global warming exits. It’s a fact not an opinion, not an exaggeration, not a lie. But what are the results of it? That is something no one really knows. Any predictions about the results are just SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses)

One final thought. If a multi multi multi millionaire is telling you not to believe something about his business that everyone else thinks is true, are you going to believe him? Why? Does he really have your/humanities best interests at hear? True we all have to make a living and havening relative who work on the oil rigs in ND I understand that just because there are environmental consensus does don’t mean they can just up and leave their jobs. But there is not point to denying that it exists and the results will likely be... shall we say... dramatic

I am fucking your mom right now

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Overall it is about power and control.

Just like all religions.

Just like rape and domestic violence....

...wait, what were we talking about?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[rhaig 0]

Quote

SO, global warming exits.

yes yes.... the earth is warmer than it used to be. The thing people argue over is the cause. Is it the tons of greenhouse gasses pumped out of cars and factories around the globe? Or is it the larger amount of greenhouse gasses coming out of active volcanoes? Were we (humans) REALLY that last straw? Or is this just another cycle in the warming/cooling trend we can see in historic temperature charts?

And as you say... what will be the result? Let's compare the current earth with the experimental control that wasn't exposed to extra CO2 because of humans and we'll see what we can come up with. Oh wait... yeah, I lost that other one... my bad... I was drunk.

--
Rob

[shropshire 0]

and all of the other warming cycles ... before man was even 'put' on Earth by his pesky gods - damn them Mamouths and their internal combustion engines....

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Overall it is about power and control.

Just like all religions.

Focus and pay attention now.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

SO, global warming exits.

yes yes.... the earth is warmer than it used to be. The thing people argue over is the cause. Is it the tons of greenhouse gasses pumped out of cars and factories around the globe? Or is it the larger amount of greenhouse gasses coming out of active volcanoes? Were we (humans) REALLY that last straw? Or is this just another cycle in the warming/cooling trend we can see in historic temperature charts?

And as you say... what will be the result? Let's compare the current earth with the experimental control that wasn't exposed to extra CO2 because of humans and we'll see what we can come up with. Oh wait... yeah, I lost that other one... my bad... I was drunk.

Total volcanic emissions are less that 1% of human caused emissions. This is backed up with three lines of evidence:

1) we know how much fossil fuel we have burned, and we have good estimates of how much CO2 volcano emit

2) there has been a decrease in atmospheric O2 level consistent with the human fossil fuel use in 1

3) studies of the ratio of stable carbon isotopes indicates that the added CO2 is from fossil organic material, not inorganic carbonates

[rhaig 0]

ok, so I got one word wrong... "larger". I'll concede that point.

Find my lost reference earth, and we'll figure out the rest. Last time I had it was near the pea gravel pit... and someone was passing around tequila... That's the last thing I remember.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

and so apparently, now NASA isn't concerned so much with warming, but with cooling (having nothing to do with greenhouse gasses).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Quote

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

--
Rob

[shropshire 0]

Follow the money

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[angle228 0]

lost earth ehh.... two words. Ice Core.

We have plenty of evidence of what the earths atomosphere was like pre human.

I am fucking your mom right now

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

yes yes.... the earth is warmer than it used to be. The thing people argue over is the cause.

I think the biggest argument is over the predictions. A recent study has revealed that the ocean levels have risen about 1.8 mm per year since 1900 – totaling about ¾ of an inch. Some climate scientists are predicting a rise in sea level of up to two meters between now and 2100 – that’s 6 ½ feet (78 inches) – or an average of .86 inches per year between 2010 and 2100. It became more interesting when a peer reviewed paper using GRACE satellite data averaged out not only a mere .04 mm per year sea level rise from 2003-2010 but found no net ice loss in the Himalayas.

Side Note – I am not even really trusting this. The data from satellites like GRACE must go through many stages of reduction to get useful information. For what it’s worth, it seems like any slight error or misjudgment would have a great effect.

Back to the future – the argument is focusing mostly on predictions. Trust me – there’s a whole different level of importance (and funding) if the sea level will rise six feet versus ¾ of an inch my 2100. That the volume of land ice is in stasis is an extremely important finding. “This glacier has retreated 100 meters in the last 20 years.” “Yeah, but the depth is three meters more up top the last decade.” “Ice is of lower extent on the Western shore of Greenland.” “Yeah, but it’s thicker over the central Greenland, which is where most of it is, anyway.” “The ice is melting on the Antarctic Peninsula.” “Yeah, but it’s accreting heavily on the East, according to the satellite.”

Right now, we’ll have to wait until 2100 to know what things are like in 2100. Sure, there are computer models predicting what the future will be, but those are just predictions. We’ve got to wait until 2100 to find out how things will be in 2100. Yeah, we may have a decent idea about it in 2190 or so. If the oceans have risen 4 cm between 2000 and 2090, we can be fairly certain that a two meter or even a one meter rise won’t happen by then.

It’s the PREDICTIONS! Why do we need $40 trillion dollars spent in climate research and warming mitigation? To prevent or prepare for a 2 meter increase in the sea level by 2100. Well, how do we know that will happen? Because the models tell us it will.

That’s the problem. It’s politics. And climate science is an adjunct for politics. Why must we divert money to clean energy? Because the climate scientists say we have to. Wait, um, why are they running policy? I asked them the same thing, and they replied that they are scientists, the fate of the world is at stake and they need money for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

>Why do we need $40 trillion dollars spent in climate research . . .

For the reason you posted above. There’s a whole different level of importance if the sea level will rise six feet versus ¾ of an inch my 2100. It's worthwhile knowing which one of the two is more likely.

(BTW since the government spends about $2 billion a year on climate change and climate change related research, I'd be curious to see where you get the $40 trillion from.)