z wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:20 pm, AR-
wrote:


You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot be
that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one that's
portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses to absorb
radiation.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


once more, I point folks to the D-Tek, a commerical device for
measuring CO2 content in an air sample by the drop in temperature of a
target irradiated with IR through the sample, and the reduction of the
irradiation of the target due to absorbtion of the IR by the CO2.
http://www.inficon.com/download/en/D-TEK_CO2.pdf

Thanks for that. While I think I understand the basic mechanism, the key
piece I'm still missing is why the CO2 should result in surface warming
rather than simply warming the atmosphere, in particular the upper
atmosphere.

T.

On Nov 1, 5:14 am, z wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:26 pm, Bill Ward wrote:



Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well, then you can certainly give us a description of the physical
mechanism whereby the chambers containing methane (lighter than air)
and carbon dioxide (heavier than air) both warmed faster than air, due
to their "density and thermal properties".

You will no doubt have noticed Bilbo has been unable to do this, for
the entire time the 'school experiment' debate has has been going.

On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward wrote:

Don't believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly understand it.
The burden of explaining a theory in a clear, accurate and understandable
manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be very suspicious of
those who try to convince you that you are so stupid you can't understand
their explanation. That's just their way of discouraging you from asking
questions they can't answer without exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don't understand you. the
"negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you are treading
off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about xtian
Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs and related
shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible, so that a
self-identified, "priest class" don't have to work, and can have their
wicked way with children. He appears to support *their* existence,
even so.

On Oct 31, 11:21*pm, z wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:20*pm, AR-

wrote:
You may be right, but that seems rather unnecessary. It surely cannot be
that difficult to set up a simple laboratory experiment, even one that's
portable, which shows the differential ability of some gasses to absorb
radiation.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

once more, I point folks to the D-Tek, a commerical device for
measuring CO2 content in an air sample by the drop in temperature of a
target irradiated with IR through the sample, and the reduction of the
irradiation of the target due to absorbtion of the IR by the CO2.http://www.inficon.com/download/en/D-TEK_CO2.pdf

We are justly waiting then, for the proper and formal scientific
documentation. What, you do not have this? Small oversight.

There is such a thing called the scientific method. The attempt with
the scientific method, is to prove your negatives to such an extent
that definite conclusions can be made.
You do not define your term IR.
You do not define your term absorption.
You do not explain exactly the conditioning of your glass. You show no
variables at all by which any conclusions of specifics can be drawn.
You show 1 exhibit, and reach conclusions from your pre-conclusioned
and ill defined terms.

Actual evidence of the 'absorption' you claim, would always be at the
point of equilibrium. In any change of temperature, there are many
factors, and change of temperature is not the standard to go by in
attempting to show inordinate absorption. If CO2 inordinately absorbs
IR, then it will always produce a higher temperature at equilibrium
since it is retaining greater energy in the system which 'transparent'
gases would allow to escape. Simple doulble pained glass with CO2
inside should demonstrate the property you claim. And this should be
done with as many different materials in place of the glass as
possible. Any one knows that it is very easy to condition glass to
allow only specific frequencies. Coupled with the bands of non-
transmission of CO2, this could be a major factor in your hoaky
exhibits and false conclusions from your detector.

In your detector, you are dealing with a small quantity of gas.
According to the 'kinetic theory of gases', gases are the same
although they have differently weighted molecules, because heavier
molecules have lower velocity, and thus the molecules of a gas absorb
the same kinetic energy.

But when dealing with the gas constant R, and then defining Bolzman's
constant of ' k ;one must realize that k is the average energy of 1
molecule in the mole of gas. This is the average for a specific
molecule over a length of time, or the average of all the molecules at
any specific moment.

It is important to remember the individual molecules, from which the
'average' pertains, and their absorption of energy as temperatures are
changed.

Many of the CO2 molecules in your detector, may be absorbing more
energy into the HEAT CAPACITY WHICH IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GREENHOUSE
GASES, which is the combination of the kinetic energy absorbed into
velocity of it's mass, the rotation of it's mass or vibrations, and
some enthalpy withing the complex molecule. All monatomic gases have
the same heat capacity which does not change at different temperatures
like most other gases. This is regardless of their weight and
according to the kinetic theory of gases.

The average velocity, (root mean-square average) is inversely
proportional to the square root of the moleclular weight. The average
velocity of hydrogen molecules at 0degC is 1.84E3 m s-1.

Therefore, the average velocity for CO2 molecules at 0degC is
2.8E2 m s-1

I am sure that this instument can detect minute quantities of CO2. But
your inference and conclusion that this is proof of the property of
greenhouse gases is not supported, by either proper scientific method,
or theoretical application.

You present no controls to substantiate your statement,
""the reduction of the
irradiation of the target due to absorbtion of the IR by the CO2"".

Your continued reference to this detector, and your lack of proper and
formal scientific documentation demonstrates clearly that your
approach to science is merely a psychological disease. You use
generalized terms, give incomplete description, and use terms that
have already reached conclusions you cannot support as well as evading
defintiton of terms you use in even very short sentences.

And then, like the blowhard you are, you demand that people accept and
believe your ill defined and unsupported conclusions.

If you believe in your own conclusions with the importance for saving
the world that you pretend, THEN LET'S SEE THE FORMAL SCIENTIFIC
DOCUMENTATION, or even some half assed attempt, WEENIE. The little
mommie's boys are no longer at home, making their dutiful and adoring
mother believe their LIES AND PRETENSE.

Sail on, fool,,

hahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahHhahahah

KD

On Nov 1, 7:18*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:12*pm, z wrote:
[ . . . ]

who are you going to believe, your lying eyes,
or some kook on the internet who can't make
an experiment work and figures that everybody
who can is therefore lying?

Z, you have summed up this issue succinctly.

Thank you!

But only to dweebs who wish to simplify their understanding completely
to terms of 'temperature' 'heat'. And then reach a conclusion with
their lazy and dishonest minds, so they can get beyond the science and
onto the satiation of the mental disease to get their freaky little
puds up everyones ass.

THE DEBATE IS JUST BEGINNING

If you do not understand the concepts of heat capacity and heat
energy, your eyes tell you nothing valuable from the hoax exhibit. In
case you assholes who wish to return to pre-modern conditions didn't
know, part of the renaissance was the development of the scientific
method.

At no point here, poopycock, do you or z-tarded refer anything that in
any way resembles the scientific method.
Just the rhetoric and literature from a hostile religion formed from
ill developed mentalities who enjoy very much their pretense at
BELIEVING THEIR OWN LIES.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

KD

On Nov 1, 7:46*am, "John M." wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:09 am, z wrote:





On Oct 31, 7:44 pm, Claudius Denk wrote:

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that's the last thing they
want.

Oh that's simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? *And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

it's a plot to make you waste your time posting here all the time, and
you've fallen for it. haha!!

Damn you, 'z'. You have handed the enemy our secret weapon :-)-

Brush up on your law. In your position, withholding any pertinent data
can be construed as criminal intent to defraud. Look what happened to
Niffong in the cases against the college guys accused of raping the
stripper. He withheld pertinent data. Was disbarred and convicted of a
crime.

Good luck in hell, dweeb.

On Nov 1, 7:49*am, "John M." wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:14 am, z wrote:

On Oct 31, 2:26 pm, Bill Ward wrote:

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. *They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well, then you can certainly give us a description of the physical
mechanism whereby the chambers containing methane (lighter than air)
and carbon dioxide (heavier than air) both warmed faster than air, due
to their "density and thermal properties".

You will no doubt have noticed Bilbo has been unable to do this, for
the entire time the 'school experiment' debate has has been going.

Because if you properly do the experiment, methane warms slower since
in has a lower heat capacity than CO2 but a higher heat capacity than
O2 and N2. Heat capacity is not the property of greenhouse gases. It
is criminal fraud to produce false exhibits it which it is portrayed
as the property of greenhouse gases.

Some of the methane must be oxidizing. This oxidation does not become
a continuing reaction within the gas, but occurs with individual
molecules with the help of the high energy photons of the visible
light and high energy infrareds.
Methane only lasts in the atmosphere for 12 years before it naturally
oxidizes into CO2 and water vapor. Therefore if you take the molar
value of enthalpy of oxidation of methane, divide by Avagadro's
number, you have the energy actually released when one molecule
oxidizes.

KD

On Nov 1, 2:40 pm, wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:46 am, "John M." wrote:



On Nov 1, 5:09 am, z wrote:

On Oct 31, 7:44 pm, Claudius Denk wrote:

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that's the last thing they
want.

Oh that's simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

it's a plot to make you waste your time posting here all the time, and
you've fallen for it. haha!!

Damn you, 'z'. You have handed the enemy our secret weapon :-)

Brush up on your law. In your position, withholding any pertinent data
can be construed as criminal intent to defraud. Look what happened to
Niffong in the cases against the college guys accused of raping the
stripper. He withheld pertinent data. Was disbarred and convicted of a
crime.

So should I go to the authorities and tell them of your mental
incompetence, or wait quietly and hope they overlook my withholding of
this information?

Good luck in hell, dweeb.

No such place. Like heaven, it's a figment of distraught imaginings by
primitive peoples, later crafted into a multitude of mammoth scams by
the 'priest class', who prefer not to work and who often like children
in singularly unpleasant ways.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:49:53 -0700, John M. wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:14 am, z wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:26 pm, Bill Ward wrote:



Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well, then you can certainly give us a description of the physical
mechanism whereby the chambers containing methane (lighter than air) and
carbon dioxide (heavier than air) both warmed faster than air, due to
their "density and thermal properties".

You will no doubt have noticed Bilbo has been unable to do this, for the
entire time the 'school experiment' debate has has been going.

IIRC, Tom reported the methane heated slower and reached a lower final T
than air until he sealed and insulated the containers.

I haven't yet seen a sufficiently detailed description of the Mythbusters
version of the experiment to determine why (or if) the results are as
reported. I'd appreciate a link to a video of it, if anybody has one.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward wrote:

Don't believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly understand
it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear, accurate and
understandable manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be
very suspicious of those who try to convince you that you are so
stupid you can't understand their explanation. That's just their way
of discouraging you from asking questions they can't answer without
exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don't understand you. the "negative
feedback from water", for example. i fear you are treading off in a
direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about xtian
Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs and related
shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible, so that a
self-identified, "priest class" don't have to work, and can have their
wicked way with children. He appears to support *their* existence, even
so.

John's vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading skills.