For those of you who read the scientific literature
http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

Quote:Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.

This is in response to Nye's narration of this experiment on Gore's webcast a few years back,

Bill Nye, clown Wrote:“All involve comparing the temperature rise in a container filled with air with that of the same or a similar container filled with carbon dioxide when exposed to radiation from the Sun or a heat lamp. Typically, a larger temperature rise is observed with carbon dioxide and the difference is attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to the physical phenomena responsible for the climate change. We argue here that great care is required in interpreting these demonstrations and, in particular, that for the case of the demonstration described by Lueddecke et al., the results arise primarily from processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change.”

Oh yeah, Gore had to fake the experiment as well

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/vi...xperiment/

as he "proved" his point.

(08-11-2014 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  For those of you who read the scientific literature
http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

Quote:Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.

This is in response to Nye's narration of this experiment on Gore's webcast a few years back,

Bill Nye, clown Wrote:“All involve comparing the temperature rise in a container filled with air with that of the same or a similar container filled with carbon dioxide when exposed to radiation from the Sun or a heat lamp. Typically, a larger temperature rise is observed with carbon dioxide and the difference is attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to the physical phenomena responsible for the climate change. We argue here that great care is required in interpreting these demonstrations and, in particular, that for the case of the demonstration described by Lueddecke et al., the results arise primarily from processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change.”

Oh yeah, Gore had to fake the experiment as well
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/vi...xperiment/
as he "proved" his point.

You have the quote tags mixed up. The part attributed to Nye is actually from the paper.

Torch that you can find a source that faults an experiment that has literally been reproduced thousands of times every single year brings your source into question. This is bunk....................

I find it absolutely baffling that you honestly believe that this Watts up with the Weather blog holds more credibility than every institution of higher learning.

(08-11-2014 06:51 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch that you can find a source that faults an experiment that has literally been reproduced thousands of times every single year brings your source into question. This is bunk....................
I find it absolutely baffling that you honestly believe that this Watts up with the Weather blog holds more credibility than every institution of higher learning.

The number of times an experiment is repeated is irrelevant to determining the cause for what is shown. The data is not being challenged, simply the analysis. The paper does not dispute that the shoe box with the added carbon dioxide gets hotter than the box with regular air (which is all that is tested in the repeated experiments you cite). They simply claim a different reason and use argon to show that radiative heating is not the cause of the temperature rise.

This experiment suggests that one quick and easy demonstration used to explain global warming does not show what its proponents think it does. As the authors note, it has nothing to do with with whether or not global warming is real. It is an evaluation of a demonstration, not an investigation into the mechanics of global warming.

Oh, and this experiment appears to have been conducted by an institute of higher learning.

(08-11-2014 06:19 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  For those of you who read the scientific literature
http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

Quote:Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.

This is in response to Nye's narration of this experiment on Gore's webcast a few years back,

Bill Nye, clown Wrote:“All involve comparing the temperature rise in a container filled with air with that of the same or a similar container filled with carbon dioxide when exposed to radiation from the Sun or a heat lamp. Typically, a larger temperature rise is observed with carbon dioxide and the difference is attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to the physical phenomena responsible for the climate change. We argue here that great care is required in interpreting these demonstrations and, in particular, that for the case of the demonstration described by Lueddecke et al., the results arise primarily from processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change.”

Oh yeah, Gore had to fake the experiment as well
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/vi...xperiment/
as he "proved" his point.

You have the quote tags mixed up. The part attributed to Nye is actually from the paper.

Thanks

(08-11-2014 07:38 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 06:51 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch that you can find a source that faults an experiment that has literally been reproduced thousands of times every single year brings your source into question. This is bunk....................
I find it absolutely baffling that you honestly believe that this Watts up with the Weather blog holds more credibility than every institution of higher learning.

The number of times an experiment is repeated is irrelevant to determining the cause for what is shown. The data is not being challenged, simply the analysis. The paper does not dispute that the shoe box with the added carbon dioxide gets hotter than the box with regular air (which is all that is tested in the repeated experiments you cite). They simply claim a different reason and use argon to show that radiative heating is not the cause of the temperature rise.

This experiment suggests that one quick and easy demonstration used to explain global warming does not show what its proponents think it does. As the authors note, it has nothing to do with with whether or not global warming is real. It is an evaluation of a demonstration, not an investigation into the mechanics of global warming.

Oh, and this experiment appears to have been conducted by an institute of higher learning.

Mach doesn't do science.

You're actually right....

I read the work of others.

I'll wait for any legitimate source or scientist to back up any of these ridiculous assertions. I'll be waiting......... a very very long time. Anytime you cite any article from any respected professional journal will be your first.

(08-11-2014 08:06 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You're actually right....
I read the work of others.
I'll wait for any legitimate source or scientist to back up any of these ridiculous assertions. I'll be waiting......... a very very long time. Anytime you cite any article from any respected professional journal will be your first.

So then I take it you read the paper before commenting? If these assertions are so ridiculous, you should be able to explain why the temperature rise in the argon box mirrored that of the carbon dioxide box, right? It should be obvious, if the claims of these researchers are so ridiculous.

I'm curious why you don't think Tufts of TERC are legitimate sources. And why the American Journal of Physics is not a respected professional journal.

I read the Watts up with the weather and the implication that Gore faked his experiment. I started reading the first page of the first link and i can see why you are responding the way you are.

OK so the paper argues that the experiment shows the heating up of the box
is due to convection not radiation.


Fair enough.

The question now is why is this newsworthy?

(08-11-2014 08:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OK so the paper argues that the experiment shows the heating up of the box is due to convection not radiation.
Fair enough.
The question now is why is this newsworthy?

Really?

Convective heating plays little or no role in the current explanations of global warming. You really don't think it's newsworthy that an experiment commonly used to demonstrate global warming shows an entirely different mechanism instead?

Really?

That is the papers conclusion. Did you read the conclusion? The Global Warming Theory has always been attributed to the trapping of long wave radiation. Not convenction.

(08-11-2014 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Really?
That is the papers conclusion. Did you read the conclusion? The Global Warming Theory has always been attributed to the trapping of long wave radiation. Not convenction.

Umm, it's almost like I wrote this in my first response to you.

Quote:This experiment suggests that one quick and easy demonstration used to explain global warming does not show what its proponents think it does. As the authors note, it has nothing to do with with whether or not global warming is real. It is an evaluation of a demonstration, not an investigation into the mechanics of global warming.

Oh wait, I totally did.

But even though this is just about the demonstration, and not global warming itself, this is still a pretty big deal. It turns out that a popular experiment used to demonstrate the mechanism of global warming might instead demonstrate something entirely unrelated. Anything that has the potential to impact thousands of lesson plans each year is a pretty big deal. It's also a good reminder that the world is a complicated place and of the dangers of confirmation bias. How many of the thousands upon thousands of people conducting the global warming in a box experiment failed to dig deeper because the results confirmed what they already believed?