Global warming/climate change

My apologies. I don’t need to know why either. We just need to confirm that greenhouse glass does indeed absorb IR light a la CO2. The perusing I’ve done this afternoon suggest that it doesn’t.

Oh it certainly does absorb IR. You can demonstrate it with an IR camera: https://www.quora.com/Can-infrared-light-pass-through-glass/answer/Paul-Spade?ch=15&oid=83020603&share=21335f79&srid=q00J&target_type=answer

This is great. And I recall reading that many months ago when I was looking up another subject. So glass can act as a proxy for CO2. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same. It just has to be compared to a material that doesn’t absorb IR nearly as well.

Even though I agree with your note* in reply #314 that the onus is on the AGW people. Their unverified conclusion has gone on so long and may be starting to become quite costly to so many obscenely rich and powerful people that you would think they would fund research disproving AGW. After all it’s as easy as setting up multiple greenhouses side by side and they have already demonstrated a willingness to spend billions influencing public opinion and legislation.

I found an unsatisfactory experiment how-to manual claiming to remove the results of convection. But it doesn’t say to use argon instead of air. It just uses an open beaker which they claim allows for convection to be unrestricted.

In part 2, however, replacing the plastic bottles with open beakers removes the restriction on convection. The difference in temperature rise between the two beakers comes mainly from absorption by the gases of the radiant (infra-red) energy from the lead discs at the bottom of the beakers

*It is up to the proponents of a theory to prove it, not the detractors.

What makes you think the rich and powerful aren’t profiting massively off of AGW?

A lot of effort and spending has already successfully influenced public opinion and legislation… where do you think the psychic-current-backed groupthink surrounding this issue is coming from?

That’s because using argon would give the same effect as CO2. Part 2 says:

  1. When this gradual rise levels off, introduce carbon dioxide as a steady flow into one of the beakers. The trace from that beaker should soon show a higher temperature than the beaker with only air – typically up to 8 degrees higher. If the gas flow is stopped, the carbon dioxide will slowly diffuse out of the beaker, replaced by air, and the temperature should begin to fall again.

The steady flow of CO2 into the beaker is preventing convection. Convection is when hot air rises — this is prevented by the constant introduction of a denser gas above it, preventing the lighter air from rising. Once this steady flow stops, convection stops being obstructed.

Can you show me how it’s easier to profit from AGW than simply investing in oil and gas. And who is doing the profiting? If I was a billionaire, I’d just invest in Chevron and BP stocks while buying up fracking rigs for myself. And if I was Chevron or Saudi Arabia, I’d throw some couch change towards a set of greenhouses that disprove AGW.

As for the beaker experiment, it does seem that convection would still be the primary driver.

In fact, the guys over in Boston said:

radiative effects are small and easily dominated by changes in convection, making it difficult to devise a convincing and authentic classroom demonstration of the radiative greenhouse effect. Even if the experiments were done in a sealed container, and CO2 were compared with Ar, differences in convective transport could not be ruled out.
link

Perhaps convective transport simply cannot be measured or ruled out in any experiment small enough to not be prohibitively expensive. But like I said, one would think that someone from either group by now be it the Saudi’s, Chevron or the AGW people would have funded a large enough experiment to prove their claims.

Richard wrote an “Addendum Four” in response to some of the recent messages on this thread:

4 pertinent questions: I want to jot these down to help frame my own research and maybe someone here has some pointers.

  1. The applicability of Stefan-Boltzmann law in the real world: What’s the biggest prediction they ever made using said law that they were able to verify empirically?

  2. The age of ice gasses: How have they tested the equations they use to estimate the age of the gasses they measure?

  3. How exactly have they ruled out conduction as a significant atmosphere to surface heat source: Does the hot air bumping into trees and rocks result in a significant warming of the Earth?

  4. Who is profiting from AGW and how-so: How does investing in a scheme to overturn the worlds energy system make any sense? If you were to follow the money trail to the very source, would it end up in institutions not already dominated by oil, gas and coal syndicates? If so, how would those institutions stand to profit?

@Andrew Hey Andrew, can you help me understand your objection to the method they used to get the -18C number. From what I can tell the law has been verified for black bodies in a lab. And it’s proven effective at predicting average temperatures for the planetary bodies in our solar system that have little to no atmosphere. Just trying to get some feedback…

Indeed, “in a lab”.

They haven’t verified the average temperature of planetary bodies, they just say they have.

My physicist “girlfriend” claims I am afraid of them being right. I am way too old to give a shit about anyone being right.

The angle I went down was to try and find a model which seeks to verify the number the Stefan-Blotzmann equation gets too.

Nothing.

The “lab” experiments involving Tungsten filiments etc are hardly a planet.

If it were not for the ability of modern technology to model a virtual planet, I could forgive the certainly they have in that equation.

Try and find someone who has modelled, using geological data of the conductive properties of soil a “virtual” earth sans atmosphere and oceans…Nada.

My research is telling me something different. Spacecrafts on Venus and Mars. Not sure about Mercury yet. I remember @son_of_bob saying something about the Moons temperature. At any rate, say these bodies have all been well recorded accounting for sample size and location of the probes. And the Boltzmann equations adjusted for estimates of albedo fall within a reasonable range of the actual measurements. Would that be a good reason for using Boltzmann as a starting point?

planetary bodies

I cannot believe the extent of this thread - wtf!! 329 posts, one as lengthy and verbose as the next.

Seems such a shame for feeling beings to be wasting so much time on this type of fruitless discussion rather than doing something productive or enjoyable.

I know discussing things can be enjoyable - and topics of interest are great - but this discussion goes way beyond that and is like an identity war. There’s suffering in the lengths gone here to defend one’s position and identity.

@claudiu you seem just about ready to die for the cause. Can’t you see the extent to which you have let your adulation of god-like Richard and an ideal of the ominiscient actually free person to, in your words, “corrupt” you?

Even your writing is absolutely dropping with Richardisms, let alone the viewpoints which only ever stretch to fit the dimensions of what Richard has already said - never crossing the boundary into contradiction or questioning. Surely this cannot be called the free flow of intelligence…. Might as well go down to the local courthouse, put on some handcuffs and shut the cell door for the amount of freedom this represents.

You do know actualism is about throwing loose the clothes of identity, not further adorning and burdening yourself with new layers?

I’m being concise bro

but this discussion goes way beyond that and is like an identity war.

And conversational

Haha isn’t that the whole point? Self-immolation to allow the already-existing peace-on-earth to become apparent? :grin:

Ehm… just step back for a second if you will… you are claiming I have an “adulation of god-like Richard and an ideal of an omniscient actually free person”, and that this has corrupted me, because I, uhm… agree with Richard that the Earth is not flat? That it isn’t black? That it’s constantly rotating as opposed to being fixed/static/unmoving? Exactly which part of the article isn’t factual?

Well 329 is a lot of posts to read but you ought to be better-informed before making such accusations, to wit:

As the premise is invalid, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

Hummm… in effect you are saying that to be in accordance with the facts/aligned with facticity, is equivalent to putting on handcuffs and locking oneself in a cell door??

Is perhaps what is bothering you that you aren’t able to change what the facts are? That the facts aren’t malleable according to your wishes and desires? You do realize that’s just the way the universe works?

Also do you realize being aligned with the facts is what leads to experiences such as these?

I might suggest getting back to a place where you experience the flavor of what you reported here ^, and then re-evaluating these matters.

How is recognizing something to be a fact, equivalent to adorning and burdening oneself with new layers of identity?

Also very salient to me in your response is that you haven’t actually pointed out anything unfactual about what Richard wrote in the article, or what I’ve written here.

If you’ve identified something that Richard wrote that isn’t a fact then now is a good time to bring it up!

Cheers,
Claudiu

I’m wondering why these things are so relevant? It seems to me the reliability of the results are the most relevant thing. If the reliability of the equations has been bolstered by their accurate predictions of nearby planets then why does it matter that they are based on 2 dimensional jerry-rigged physics?

*no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source.

There is something weird going on on this forum currently. It kind of reminds me of one of the pioneers seeing Richard as a lunatic/madman at some point, I don’t remember who it was precisely. It all seems back to front…

It’s the method that is at fault, it’s the actually free that are biased etc

This is written by ‘entities’ that consist of anything but fact, and with such conviction. And what for? To maintain some apparent individuality, by avoiding facts and maintaining belief.

It does make sense in a way, after all ‘I’ cannot maintain ‘myself’ without belief. It’s like these dying outburst of an identity, grasping to maintain its individuality, it’s separateness.

1 Like

@Kub933 I’m just hanging out in my living room seeing notifications pop up. And asking if these models have made accurate predictions of the temperature of nearby planets or not so much? It seems like they have and it seems like that bolsters the usefulness of the models. But Idk. I’m looking for feedback.

@Felix

It’s lovely to have you posting again!

It’s rather off the mark what you are saying here though.

It’s not Richardism to examine what the first actually free person’s writing is pointing too.

Indeed, had I done it years ago, and/or had I done it in person, I may well have avoided my current situation.

Despite whatever other dramas I am having in life, it’s lovely to look up at the sky these days without the doom and gloom of the AGW beliefs clouding my appreciation.

When I finally get the courage to burn my virtual “record collection” and leave my so called "generation X"s belief in, and glorification of despair, I anticipate a similar freedom.

1 Like

Not to bring back doom and gloom but the glaciers are receding whether due to anthropogenic causes or other causes.

Haha, that’s funny.

I am still a classical environmentalist. More trees, more biodiversity, protection of ecosystems, living in harmony with the natural world.

Whatever is happening to those glaciers, is nothing compared to that fact that the earth regularly has near misses with solar EMP storms which would wipe out the modern world.

Literally, any second of the day, a “solar storm” could hit us and wipe out the entire electrical systems we have built. Not only plunging us into darkness, but destroying the entire financial system, and everything relying on it.

Poker joke warning;

I see your “receding glaciers” and raise you “solar storms” :rofl:

Lol. I didn’t know they were regular. What’s regular? Once every 300 years?