On the Role of CO2 in the Global Warming

1,684

4

16

Posted

Introduction: On the Role of CO2 in the Global Warming

I wanted to study how much carbon dioxide is needed to produce a maximum warming effect in a greenhouse. So, I have build some mini-greenhouses, whose CO2 content were varied and temperatures  measured. Dia 1.

Tools for adding the carbon dioxide Dia 2.

Mini-greenhouses were directed to sun with my solar tracking sundial. Dia 3.

Results of my experiment are available  here. I hope that somebody, who lives in a place with more sunshine, will continue the experiment.

Share

Recommendations

  • Epilog Challenge 9

    Epilog Challenge 9
  • Sew Warm Contest 2018

    Sew Warm Contest 2018
  • First Time Author Contest 2018

    First Time Author Contest 2018
user

We have a be nice policy.
Please be positive and constructive.

Tips

Questions

15 Comments

One International Panel on Climate Change has been the UN's committee to study the affects of manmade CO2 on the climate.

The annual reports were offered by the media and accepted as a basis for which regulations, fines, new programs, etc. have been instituted to aid the process of lowering carbon emission.

Then in 2015, the reports from all the years from 2000-2015 were compiled into one large report. The media misusing the data was exposed b/c the reports, when side by side, showed no manmade climate change had taken place. In fact even some pro-AGW sites were using saying there was a "hiatus" in global warming.

You can download the report for yourself, see the data firsthand, and be angered for the lie the powers that be have foisted upon us all in the name of greed. Info to do so is further down in this post.

In fact the UN, after the compiled report was examined by them and also published, acknowledged there was no problem. So they took a vote as to whether or not to keep pushing the agenda. Well, no surprise here, the amount of money made through these programs speaks loudly. The UN voted to continue pushing the agenda just in case we might somehow start some day to somehow make an an impact.

You can flame me and you can whine, or you can see the data for YOURSELF.

Here is where you YOU get the actual data to see it for yourself: Google "Game Over, the IPCC Quietly Admits Defeat," and download the IPCC's compiled report for yourself. Read it, and wish, like I do, that the millions of people pressured out of their hard earned cash could sue for the sham.

The only people keeping this issue alive are those who profit from it, and those who have been taught WHAT to think without encouragement for actually looking at non-filtered data. These same people are also taught to divert the argument against the money-making scheme by not caring to look at the actual data and to simply cry "fool," at anyone who has seen.studied the actual data. This is how the profiteers keep the system in check - and it goes very high up the ladder. Even on the state levels, think of how much money is brought by vehicle emissions check stations.

We have been lied to enough.

Even when this scam was started there were those who understood CO2 is not what causes heat in a greenhouse - its the water vapor - humidity. Yet the media decided to call CO2 a greenhouse gas and people who0 desire to be told what to think accepted it.

It was the scare that followed the kills bee scare, the acid rain scare, and was helped to spread widely by the daily (no exaggeration at all) Ozone Hole Scare from daily media. The ozone hole over the North pole was growing, was going continue to grow, and was going cause us to be able to grow palm trees on the shores of Lake Erie by the year 2000. As Y2K approached we needed another scare to divert us from the lie of the daily reminders of the ozone hole scare (brought in $billions by lawmakers, etc.). Thus was birthed the Y2K computer scare that any person familiar with computers knew was an absolute hoax (computers were not yet quite home pictures). Surprise, surprise (to those wanting to be told WHAT to think, instead of how), the word survived.

Meanwhile, USA today, in a small article of the first issue of the new millennia showed the ozone hole had healed itself (miraculous for sure...NOT). What we had been assured was impossible inescapable, and greatly aided the cause of innumerable fines, regulations, tests imposed on the public and factories was shown to be what it was - media hype training the public to be cheated out of more of their hard earned cash.

FYI read this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak I really doubt that the IPCC and so many other researchers are wrong. there are many natural factors effecting climate and although CO2 is an IR absorber methane is worse. this all gets more complicated because higher temp produces more cloud and thus a higher albedo. all this aside well done for actually attempting to collect your own data there is nothing wrong in trying to confirm what ligature tells us.

FYI read this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak I really doubt that the IPCC and so many other researchers are wrong. there are many natural factors effecting climate and although CO2 is an IR absorber methane is worse. this all gets more complicated because higher temp produces more cloud and thus a higher albedo. all this aside well done for actually attempting to collect your own data there is nothing wrong in trying to confirm what ligature tells us.

Look up the data for ice samples taken in Greenland (I think, it's been a while since I read the data) and the percentages of gases enclosed measured by gas chromatography. Anyway these are deep core samples of ice dating to the 1400's and even farther back. If you look at recorded temperature versus the content of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is actually a reverse correlation to CO2 and temperature, in other words as the temperatures get colder, CO2 levels rise and vice versa, with a slight lag at abrupt changes. CO2 is such a miniscule component of atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor being the greatest) that it's effect is nominal at best. Also plug any data in the so called "hockey stick" graph equation (NL Ball stats for example) and you still get a hockey stick because there is a proven yet for some reason, unheralded flaw in the equation. You can BELIEVE anything you wish, but actual data over the millenia is against you.

Regarding this article, the solar tracker is great and I think it's excellent this person decided to get more hands on experience with measuring how CO2 can act as an insulator. However I think the instruments are insufficient depth to simulate infrared getting trapped in an atmosphere. But it really says something that the author was able to get any results at all at this scale.

I don't mean to be a troll. Your design is nice and well thought out. You should use your talents on more useful research. Anthro-progenic Global Warming is a scam started by General Electric in the 80's to sell a new generation of "Green" products. There is even an internal memo stating that very thing. (can't find it currently or I would link) Follow the money. Al Gore is getting stinking rich off his role in the scam. The myth has been further perpetuated by egotistical and gullible naturalist. I say egotistical because man has a tiny effect on the planet as a whole. Man has, only slightly, effected the weather around large metropolitan areas. Rain storms seem to avoid the vertically radiated heat from asphalt and concrete. Other than that the planet is much larger and more resilient than we could possibly destroy. (nuke excluded from statement) If you study the known history of CO2, you will find that the levels of CO2 increase after a warming trend begins. That means it is an effect of the warming cycle not the cause. Then after a warming cycle you usually get a cooling cycle. Maybe that means that CO2 is the cause of Global Cooling. (I doubt that) The main factor in the increase/decrease in global temp is the Sun's cycle of sun spot activity. Mars and Venus average temperatures follow the averages of the earth.

Please tell me about these GE Green products, they don't seem to have made much of an impact in the UK.

L

You are kidding right? Do a Google search for GE green products. Almost everything green being sold to the US Gov is made by GE. There was a company wide marketing campaign back around the end of the global cooling scare. They were going to be ahead of everyone else going "Green". I am still looking for the memo again. Last I saw of it was a couple years ago.


Web-link?

L