@Charles: can you get me a cup he drank from? So we can clone him.
We are the evil empire, time to live up to our name!
Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
@evildictaitor: insulation from convection is an entirely different phenomenon that we are discussing here. Not to mention that a body produces it's own heat, unlike the surface which is heated by the sun.
We are debating thermal radiation,. In where an system open to space is thermally affected by the atmosphere that surrounds it. My take is no, and no bottle experiment or naked amazon tossed into the cold has convinced me that you can warm a body by reflecting it's own energy without external work.
They thought this external work took place in a hotspot in the atmosphere, but when they looked, it wasn't there.
So much for 4th grade science.
@cbae: same rules apply between visible and non visible light.
The point of the experiment is, you can't light the spot with it's own light. Therefore you can't light the earth warmer with it's own infrared radiation.
@cbae:I'm saying, just because you revert the beam back to it's origin, it's origin will not light up brighter.
@evildictaitor: I agree with you, it's not complicated, because it is untrue.
You can post picures of perpetuum mobile all day, still doesn't make it true.
You cannot warm water with an icecube! They teach that in kindergarten!
@evildictaitor: You can't compare surface temperatures of the different planets, they all have completely different atmospheric masses.
Like the bottle experiment, the heavier the atmosphere, the greater the pressure, the greater the energy density, the greater the temperature.
Check the temperatures of the different atmosphere's relative to earths atmospheric pressure. It's about the same.
I think everybody should get 100% tax deduction. And as I said, any subsidy should be stopped immediately, regardless who is the beneficiary.
CO2 was confirmed as a greenhouse gas 150 years ago - long before the climate change debate started in the late 1980s. The mechanics of how and why extra carbon dixiode in the atmosphere causes a temperature rise is trivial: CO2 absorbs infrared; then re-emits it.
But only some of the re-emitted infrared goes outwards, and some inwards back towards the surface. That re-emission back down IS the greenhouse effect.
That's precisely what the lamp on desk experiment disproves.
In order for energy to flow from the CO2 to the ground, the CO2 has to have a higher temperature then the ground. Like with current in electricity, there has to be a difference in potential for energy to flow. Second law of thermodynamics.
Measuring temperature of a gas inside a container does not prove the greenhouse effect.
You have to have sunlight being absorbed on a surface, that surface has to heat the atmosphere (0,04% CO2), then you need to double that to (0,08% CO2) and measure the changes in temperature of your surface.
All this experiment does is prove that pressure drives temperature (energy density actually), which is a basic physics. As CO2 is heavier then air.
Hogwash,. You can easily neglect the expansion of the universe when calculating the mass of a liter of water. Scientifically proven that my model works.
Now, I challenge you to do the same for amount of warming for a doubling of CO2. Like proton2 said, they can't even get the sign for that number right,.
And now you say I have to come up with a better model, otherwise theirs is true? That's the world in reverse. You claim something, you prove it,. And none of the proof I've seen thus far, adds up. It fails the most basic of tests.
Here's an experiment you can try for yourself disproving global warming;
Aim a regular light at a desk. Now try with a mirror to make the spot brighter then it already is by reflecting it's rays back.
Because the mirror will light up the same as the spot on the table, therefore no flow will go from the mirror to the desk. You require a brighter spot on the mirror then on the desk.
This is precisely what climate scientists claim. Sunlight is converted by the earth into long wave radiation and this radiation is being reflected by the CO2 back to the planet, causing additional warming, which gets reemitted, and on and on, till you have a runaway greenhouse effect.
It cannot happen since the CO2 is the equivalent of the mirror. Therefore the greenhouse theory fails.