- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 37,177
- Reaction score
- 29,716
Great, Principia-Scientific junk. Such a trash site. The site not only spruiks climate denial, but they also spruik amto-vaccination crap that has lead to the deaths of many kids. I accept that climate deniers exist. But I have no respect for pieces of shit that sell anti-vax information. So I have no respect for Principia-scientific.If we were to believe the lies that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of global warming, via its mechanism of back radiation, then adding CO2 gas to a vacuum chamber, which within contains a tungsten filament, should cause the temperature of the filament to rise. Heated Straight tungsten filament contained within a vintage vacuum bulb glows in the temperature range of 1000 to 2000K. It emits radiation in the IR wave bands which CO2 most strongly absorbs and so it would be expected that any back-radiant heating effect would be maximal and self-evident. Unfortunately as we will see later, it is not.
This can be seen in the CO2 spectral absorption graph, its absorbance in 4 to micron wavelength (light bulb spectra) is far in excess of the strength of its absorption in the 14 to 16 micron wavelengths.
Spectral Graph of absorption and emission of CO2
The emission bands of a light bulb doesn’t peak at 4k, but there still is a significant portion of its energy being emitted in that range. This can be seen in the two graphs below so therefore we would expect the CO2 to absorb well this radiation being emitted.
Black Body Emission Spectrum 1000k
Black Body Emission Spectrum 2000k
So how to go about proving if this back radiant effect is all powerful, or if in fact, other far more dominant factors are at play. What perhaps is actually occurring?
To this end I have had constructed the twin vacuum chamber, portable comparison experiment. So that I can compare two different states of heat loss with each other and show this effect live if necessary.
The schematic of the experiment is shown below along with a picture of it.
Filament Cooling Experiment Schematic
Briefly you can see that this arrangement allows me to evacuate two chambers so I can make a comparison between two straight tungsten filaments, one in a vacuum and the other with a gas added.
Filament Cooling Experiment Photograph
To see a more detailed explanation of the experiment you can see these two links.
I conducted several different comparisons to see the differences between the two which can be seen in this video. The main comparisons are between the Vacuum bulb and the filament in carbon dioxide from 0 Bar, 0.2 Bar & 0.7 Bar.
– Twin Vacuum Video – Evacuation First Stage
This is the picture of the filament at 0 Bar, vacuum.
Freeze Frame of Exposed Straight Tungsten Elements in a Vacuum 0.0 Bar
You can see this is equally bright across the entire length of the filament, the filament is clearly very bright. It is bright top, middle and bottom.
So, what happens if I add a small amount of Carbon Dioxide to the filament? Are the filament surfaces “globally warmed” by the CO2experiencing an increase in temperature as a result of back radiation, causing GMST to rise? Well, actually no.
Freeze Frame of Exposed Straight Tungsten Elements in a CO2 Gas 0.2 Bar
Here are 0.2 Bar you can see that the dimming is evident, the filament is less bright and in particular it is dimmest at the bottom and brightest at the top, but even at the top it is less bright than just the vacuum. Convection as well as conduction is occurring and this is explains the difference in brightness in the filament. The convective and conductive cooling is transferring heat away from the filament and this is the reason it is less bright.
Freeze Frame of Exposed Straight Tungsten Elements in a CO2 Gas 0.7 Bar
At 0.7 Bar CO2 it can be seen that the bottom is now not even glowing at all with the middles dimmed visibly to a faint red glow and top glowing much less bright. The thinness of the filament is more evident, in the first picture the filaments look thick because of the brightness of the light. The filaments are approximately 0.0005m thick.
So we can concretely say that the addition of CO2 gas had no “heating effect” on the filaments at all. The cooling effect however on the filament is entirely evident. The cooling and convective effect could never be overcome by an IR emissive gas. From a radiation steady state temperature point of view, the effective surface area for cooling of the filament cage has increased. There are millions upon millions of molecules in this chamber and this energy is now being spread among them, whereas previously this was not the case. As the gas is emissive the molecules would be emitting the radiation in all directions, in effect creating a filament / gas body which has a larger number of molecules and therefore a larger surface area for emissive cooling, compared to just the filament on its own. This increase in 3 dimensional surface area for cooling could never be overcome by an IR gas, no matter how many thousand times more powerful as supposed greenhouse gas it was. The addition of the IR effects of the gas could never overcome conduction cooling losses, convective cooling losses or the increase in radiation losses due to having a larger 3D emissive area for cooling. It is an idiotic thing to even think it could, yet this is the kind of idiotic backward thinking, twaddle talking alarmists expect everyone to believe.
Increasing the current would make the filament brighter, adding Trillions and Trillions of CO2 gas molecules, could never replicate that increase.
The video experiments can be seen on the links indicated below, which can be used in the you tube search facility or cut and pasted into the IE bar.
3.– CO2 is added to the chamber
4– Vacuum and CO2 Comparison
5– Like for like proof
6 https://youtu.be/oNgdamTlavc – Non Dialogue Showing the Cooling of the Filament
7.https://youtu.be/5Etl3kH_1WQ – Non Dialogue Experiment 1 First Successful Attempt
These videos are proofs that the fake science of “global warming” and the “radiation greenhouse effect” is not built upon solid foundations at all and the science of GMST rising as a result of CO2 presence in the atmosphere is nothing but a political fabrication in order to control and tax people in an unfair and unethical manner
I'm guessing this was submitted for peer review and reproduced?
Maybe not. If it was then someone would have pointed out the flaws in the experiment. Including the lack of control testing for convection, lack of testing of testing for thermodynamic threshold, and ignoring the fact that CO2 is never claimed to have a large radiant temperature especially in comparison to a strong IR source.
BTW, similar experiments have been carried out for over 100 years and they found the opposite
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
Let me know when this experiment is properly peer reviewed and published by a well respected source.