• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

The Coffee Shop

  • Thread starter The Fallen Angel
  • Start date
Go to CruxDreams.com
montycrusto said:
Clearly nobody is going to convince anybody of anything here: I propose that anyone who wants to continue the argument should do so by private message.:D
Click to expand...

Am happy to do so - but that is te big problem with this topic both here and in the wider world. All reasonable debate is stifled by those who want to make sure that their point of view is the only one heard. The BBC is a very good example of this.
 
bellesouth said:
Am happy to do so - but that is te big problem with this topic both here and in the wider world. All reasonable debate is stifled by those who want to make sure that their point of view is the only one heard. The BBC is a very good example of this.
Click to expand...
Not trying to stifle anybody.. just to enjoy my coffee without propaganda (from either side). But if you want to try to turn this thread into a climate-change discussion thread, that’s up to you. I will leave you to it. :D
 
Answer: The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect.". Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted . CO2_invisibility_med.jpg
 
Last edited:
bellesouth said:
Am happy to do so - but that is te big problem with this topic both here and in the wider world. All reasonable debate is stifled by those who want to make sure that their point of view is the only one heard. The BBC is a very good example of this.
Click to expand...
Just a suggestion. Instead of coming with diatribes and debate, which are not the purpose of this site, why don't you try being creative and write a story involving the actual themes of this site and incorporating your views on climate if you wish? That would possibly get more favorable attention.
 
GoatJr said:
Answer: The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect.". Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted .
Click to expand...
[QUOTE="GoatJr, Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would not be warm enough for humans to live. But if the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, it could make the earth warmer than usual. Even a little extra warming of the earth may cause problems for humans, plants and animals. greenhouseefeqti.gif This is not an argument it's Science !
 
Last edited:
GoatJr said:
GoatJr said:
800798[/ATTACH] This is not an argument it's Science !
Click to expand...
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. "The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,"
Click to expand...
waterDiagram.jpg water_feedback.gif .
 
Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who in 1896 first calculated how carbon dioxide emissions could lead to the greenhouse effect. He thought the Earth would boil in a few thousand years. He made a fundamental error in that he didn’t recognise water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Knut Angstrom pointed this out in 1901, and showed experimentally that adding CO2 has very little impact on climate.

This is science.
 
bellesouth said:
Svante Arrhenius, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who in 1896 first calculated how carbon dioxide emissions could lead to the greenhouse effect. He thought the Earth would boil in a few thousand years. He made a fundamental error in that he didn’t recognise water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Knut Angstrom pointed this out in 1901, and showed experimentally that adding CO2 has very little impact on climate.

This is science.
Click to expand...
GoatJr said:
www.realclimate.org

Part II: What Ångström didn’t know

By raypierre , with the gratefully acknowledged assistance of Spencer Weart In Part I the long struggle to get beyond the fallacious saturation argument was recounted in historical terms. In Part II, I will provide a more detailed analysis for the reader interested in the technical nitty-gritty...
www.realclimate.org
Click to expand...
montycrusto said:
Not trying to stifle anybody..
Click to expand...
I also don´t want to stifle someone, but now that we already have January 2020 - have you thought about buying Christmas gifts for everyone?
 
A very nice experiment but so many variables as to make it almost worthless as an argument. These are from the comments about it posted on the website where you found it - but then you wouldn't want us to know about these.
"Those bottles sound like they were sealed very tightly. The bottle with the tablet in will have experienced adiabatic compression causing its temperature to rise. You should add a brewers air lock to this experiment."
"This is nice and simple and does involve C02. I am a bit confused though. It would seem that the greenhouse effect is already occurring with the plastic of the bottle which allows light in but no heat out. Is the alka seltzer CO2 adding to that greenhouse effect (proving your point), or just increasing the pressure thereby causing the temp to increase?"
"Now try to do the same experiment by simply doubling the volume of CO2 in the air in the container. 400 ppm is 1 part per 2500. Not sure how many alka-seltzer tablets that equates to, but I am sure that it is such a small fraction of a tablet that you wouldn't even be able to measure and cut it with the simple material you seem to have at hand."
There are others casting doubts on the position of the lamp and the effect of what is actually released by the aka-zeltzer tablets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom