Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > An experimental demo of GHE.

Dung doesn't believe experiment by observing nature. If there are no lab coats and spectacles, it isn't science;)

Jan 16, 2013 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames


Wrong mate, as far as I am concerned nature already did lots of experiments but nobody is interested. The ice core records show that CO2 does not normally raise temp and certainly not at levels above about 240 ppm. geronimo like many others have suggested real world observations but the IPCC and governments are not interested so I looked for a repeatable experiment. However I am not a scientist and so I was hoping one of the many we have on BH would oblige by critiquing my suggested exp?

Jan 16, 2013 at 11:50 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Only joking Dung - as denoted by my use of the smiley :)

Jan 17, 2013 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

> Please tear this apart but it looks like it should work to me ^.^

I'm not sure I understand the structure of the apparatus but with a fan the dominant heat transfer will be convection, will this not totally obscure the small changes due to GHE?

Also 10m seems very long.


Jan 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial


My assumption is that the CO2 in the 10 metre section of tubing will (or will not) re emit IR radiation received from the source. At the moment that is all I want to test and the ten metre section is my crude replication of the atmosphere where convection does take place anyway.
Thank you for commenting mate I was beginning to thing nobody would respond hehe.

Jan 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Look at the description of the greenhouse effect. It starts with some backradiation etc, occurring with the sun's rays hitting the earth, and some photons bouncing around, and culminates in 'warmth' that is detected a 100 years out, if. There is no beginning to this theory and there is no end - it is a loosely, imprecisely thrown together storyline to fit a post-ozone regulatory framework, that derives support by attributing warming that has already occurred to itself. We know how many holes there are in that one.

Greenhouse warming may be preceded by a prolonged phase of cooling, for all we care, and yet this cooling wouldn't invalidate the theory. Is that what they tell you? What they tell us, on the other hand, is that every second of warmth is because of CO2. Planetary greenhouse theory itself has problems with offering explanations, for glaciation, and for the early faint sun paradox, for example. The recent paper in Science I pointed out, which no one seems to have picked out, has Pierrehumbert claiming that nitrogen could have behaved like a greenhouse gas in the early earth (if I understood the paper correctly).

Jan 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM | Registered Commentershub

has anyone considered using Tyndall's apparatus?

Jan 30, 2013 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes