Sydney CBD climate protest attracts over 30,000 people

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
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.

  1. – Twin Vacuum Video
  2. – Evacuation First Stage
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.




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
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.

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.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
You need to seek help habib
Imagine using religion to gain support because you can’t use facts to gain support or win arguments.

also imagine rubbishinf News Ltd just afternoon using them as a source of facts because an article made you happy.
 

COVENS

Kennel Addict
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
5,010
Reaction score
5,160
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.

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.
I was looking forward to your response to that, you didn't let me down.
 

Lebaneze Cartel

Kennel Participant
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
131
Imagine using religion to gain support because you can’t use facts to gain support or win arguments.

also imagine rubbishinf News Ltd just afternoon using them as a source of facts because an article made you happy.
Very sad indeed...
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Patrickz you sick cuntz
Funny that his bio doesn't mention that he's now paid by fossil fuel companies to advertise their products.

His post also doesn't mention that the "500 scientists" is made up of a few scientists, some medical doctors, a few lawyers, some politicians, some reporters, some bloggers.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
Funny that his bio doesn't mention that he's now paid by fossil fuel companies to advertise their products.

His post also doesn't mention that the "500 scientists" is made up of a few scientists, some medical doctors, a few lawyers, some politicians, some reporters, some bloggers.
I wonder how many of the “scientists” that spread global warming are paid by greeny companies and/or China? Hmmmmmmmm
Jokes let’s not apply the same suspicions on scientists who believe in global warming
 

Lebaneze Cartel

Kennel Participant
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
131
I wonder how many of the “scientists” that spread global warming are paid by greeny companies and/or China? Hmmmmmmmm
Jokes let’s not apply the same suspicions on scientists who believe in global warming
No no no no no no no no......its not like that reeeee
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
I wonder how many of the “scientists” that spread global warming are paid by greeny companies and/or China? Hmmmmmmmm
Jokes let’s not apply the same suspicions on scientists who believe in global warming
Of course. Everyone should be scrutinised if they have a conflict of interest. Do you know who funds the scientists that work for the IPCC?
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
Of course. Everyone should be scrutinised if they have a conflict of interest. Do you know who funds the scientists that work for the IPCC?
I don’t even know what ipcc is. But please educate me for future reference.
 

Juicydog

Kennel Established
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
857
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.

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.
q = ε σ (Th4 - Tc4) Ah

I just want to show you the difference between a heat flow equation (above) and a Greenhouse Effect equation (picture below).In both you see the letter T with the number 4 beside it. This refers to the energy which we calculate using the temperature of the places we are measuring. Which is what the T stands for: Temperature.

Note that in the greenhouse equation below) they ADD the energy from the two places together (see the plus sign + between the two letter Ts) and in the heat flow equation they SUBTRACT energy one from the other (see the minus sign - )

As both of these equations are describing the exact same phenomena, both can’t be correct. One is right and one is wrong. Either energy that a cooler object absorbs from a hotter source is sent back to the source and ADDED to it, OR energy leaves the hotter source and travels to the cooler object and heat is SUBTRACTED. So think. You don’t need to be a scientist with a PhD. If you are standing next to a glacier.

Energy leaves your body and is absorbed by the ice. The ice radiates in all directions including back towards you, including some of the energy that you just gave it. Now, does that energy coming back from the glacier to you ADD to your own outgoing energy and raise your temperature? Does your core temperature increase from 37C to 42C if you stand next to a glacier? OR Does heat keep leaving your body and warm the glacier a little bit? If your body warms your immediate surroundings to the same as your core temperature do you stop getting colder? Will your skin become 37C just like your blood so you no longer feel cold? We can make things more complex.

We can add concepts such as heat capacity, insulation, resistance, emissivity, etc and some of these things CAN raise the temperature of the source of energy. This is what the deceitful and the ignorant rely on to fool you into thinking the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is real. But none of these other concepts are part of the mathematics that describes how the Effect is supposed to work. Only the equation does.

And its mechanism is to ADD the energy that a cooler object has just received from a warmer source to the warmer source. It completely contracts the other equation for heat flow shown above. Choose which one fits your experience of reality.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
I don’t even know what ipcc is. But please educate me for future reference.
That explains a lot.

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are a group of thousands of scientists from around the world who compile and study all research on climate change to figure out most of the current climate change projections we currently have and how we should best tackle it.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
For the record, it was a trick question. The IPCC scientists are volunteers. They don't get paid to do it.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
That explains a lot.

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are a group of thousands of scientists from around the world who compile and study all research on climate change to figure out most of the current climate change projections we currently have and how we should best tackle it.
Lol so essentially they have a bias. There company is built around the belief climate change is worsened by humans since the Industrial Age? Imagine the coincidence that recorded weather history only started in 1910.
Officially, it was 1910 when we started doing widespread observations with Stevenson Screens, which hold observational equipment used to measure temperatures," Greg Dewhurst, meteorologist at the Met Office

I wonder if we had just as bad weather prior to this period?
 
Top