Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 200 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Topic Options
#52940 - 09/05/14 03:29 PM Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136


1) glass lids = IR radiation does not enter either glass canister.

so the majority of light that would enter either glass canister would
be visible light , and IR lamps do not give off much visible
light.

2) the BLACK bottle of CO2 + IR lamp = pre-heated CO2.

the BLACK bottle of CO2 is positioned just under and
slightly to the side of the IR lamp which quickly heats
up the CO2 bottle through the absorption of IR radiation
and the hot bottle itself then heats up the CO2 in the
CO2 bottle through convection.

3) the plastic tube that feeds the pre-heated CO2 into the glass canister.

the IR lamp will also heat up the plastic tube that feeds
the pre-heated CO2 into the glass canister through absorption , this will
heat the CO2 being fed into the glass canister even more.


where are the actual scientist guy videos of experiments.
perhaps you remember those people that used to think things through first?

BTW , I really like the bright red eternally bouncing
Free Energy balls in the video , this centuries old scientifically proven process ( NOT ) will serve as the
foundation of my next Free Energy Machine !!

this time I actually might get some funding , because
they actually believe that the process works !

Brilliant.




crazy
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
.
#52943 - 09/06/14 05:38 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
2) the BLACK bottle of CO2 + IR lamp = pre-heated CO2.

the BLACK bottle of CO2 is positioned just under and
slightly to the side of the IR lamp which quickly heats
up the CO2 bottle through the absorption of IR radiation
and the hot bottle itself then heats up the CO2 in the
CO2 bottle through convection.

And then the CO2 is cooled by expansion as it is released from the bottle. So I expect the cooling would more than offset the warming from the lamp shining on the bottle. In fact in the short time that the bottle is exposed to the heat lamp it would probably not have time to warm very much. So I fully expect that the CO2 entering the jar would be quite a bit cooler than the air previously in the jar. So the bottle warms up quite a bit more than is evident just from the comparison of the temperatures after the lamps are turned on.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52944 - 09/06/14 10:38 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I also thought about the expanding CO2 , but the guy in
the video just barely opens the CO2 bottle then turns the valve back slightly.

this tells me that the heating inside the black CO2 bottle
from convection would greatly outweigh any cooling.

and of course the amount of cooling inside the tube due to
expansion would be lowered because the tube itself was heated
and had already heated the air in the tube.

and the slow rate of flow of CO2 from the bottle would allow plenty of time
for the IR heat lamp just inches away from the plastic tube
to heat the CO2 to a mere 1 degree or higher before the CO2 traveled the entire distance of the
heated plastic tube and finally reached the glass IR reflecting canister.

given that we were not told the flow rate of CO2 from the
bottle we cannot calculate the degree of cooling in the tube.

to me this video sort of says that these guys wanted a
crutch to lean on if needed at a later date for a flip flop.

check out the "two" (actually the same exact thermometer)
thermometers with the same defect on each thermometer located at 38C.

the experiment was doomed to failure before it began.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52947 - 09/07/14 02:03 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Keep in mind that he opened the valve before he applied the heat lamps. There wasn't any time to heat the gas bottle before he applied the heat to the jars. So you lose again. That seems to be normal for your so called debunking of science. Science wins just about every time.

I still keep getting my mental exercise from spotting all the numerous errors you keep making in your attempts to overthrow real science. Well, maybe I don't spot all of them there are an awful lot of them. But every little bit keeps my mind working.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52956 - 09/08/14 05:25 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I lose? when have we ever been discussing anything
where I was wrong , Bill?

think about it and let me know because you said that

I lose again...

to keep my record of winning going , I would like to
point out that there was only a two second time period
between valve opening and heat lamp start up.

2 seconds ...

and the tube looks as if it is at least 10 ft long !!!

now tell me Bill , why would any competent scientist need
a ten foot or longer tube to connect the CO2 bottle to
the glass canister?

I already know why , he wanted to show how horrible
the global warming is supposed to be , so he decided that
in order to heat up the CO2 he would need to expose the CO2
to some heat source before the CO2 entered the canister
thus the 10 ft length of
plastic tubing ( the CO2 heater required for needed results ).

it would take more than 2 seconds to fill the tube with
such a low flow rate according to the degree of valve opening
that was applied , and the heat lamp would easily heat
the CO2 before it reached the glass canister.


although you have launched a preemptive boasting attempt
it didn't work , and I might add , you lose again !

also you didn't comment on the same thermometer being used
in the video to prove the horrors of global warming.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52961 - 09/08/14 10:35 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Paul, when I almost immediately spot the errors in your claims then it is obvious that you lose. And I spot errors in almost every one of your claims. You then do some hand waving and claim that you have refuted my points. You never actually admit that I have a good point, since that would invalidate your claims that you know more about science than any scientist in the world. So you continually lose, but won't admit it.

Bill Gill

Sorry Rose, once in a while I do get a bit carried away and have to go ahead and point out that Paul is an ignoramus. I'll try to limit the times I do it.

BG
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52967 - 09/09/14 01:38 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
and the tube looks as if it is at least 10 ft long !!!

now tell me Bill , why would any competent scientist need
a ten foot or longer tube to connect the CO2 bottle to
the glass canister?

When did you measure the tube? And as to why anybody would use a long tube. Anybody who had a longer than necessary tube for a quickie demonstration and didn't want to chop it up into short pieces might use a long one. That way they can save it for other uses.

Give it up Paul, you lose again.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52968 - 09/09/14 02:25 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul, when I almost immediately spot the errors in your claims then it is obvious that you lose. And I spot errors in almost every one of your claims.


you think they are errors , but they are not , and that is why
I never admit that you have a good point.

Quote:
Paul is an ignoramus


name calling usually occurs when one side of a discussion
runs out of scientific reasons ( points as you call them ) and it is usually the side that runs out of points that starts the name calling , because the side that still has points has no
reason to begin name calling as a pseudo defense of their
side of a discussion.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52969 - 09/09/14 02:32 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
When did you measure the tube?


I did not say that I measured the tube.

I said the following , you must have had trouble comprehending
the wording.

Quote:
and the tube looks as if it is at least 10 ft long !!!


don't give up Bill , theres always a slim chance that
you will be right one day , and if nothing else , striving
to be right in your quest to find me wrong will as you say
give you loads of mental exercise.

smile
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52970 - 09/09/14 02:44 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
And as to why anybody would use a long tube. Anybody who had a longer than necessary tube for a quickie demonstration and didn't want to chop it up into short pieces might use a long one. That way they can save it for other uses.


you would think that money would not be a barrier since
the global warming alarmist who think that CO2 is such
a warming hazard to the climate would not concern
themselves with the extra few dollars in cost.

you know to me , I see them in lowes or some hardware store
looking at a roll of tubing with calculator in hand , determining
the length they will need to buy in order to allow time
for the IR heat lamp to heat the CO2 as it slowly passes
through the tube , because tubing is sold by the foot.


they would actually have saved more money by using a 1 foot
piece of tubing vs the 10 ft piece of tubing.

the tubing itself was unnecessary because CO2 is heavier
than air !!!

they could have simply held the CO2 bottle above the
glass canister then opened the CO2 valve and the CO2
would have fallen into the glass canister.

sorry , that was just another scientific point I thought
I might stress.

this way they wouldn't have to concern themselves with
cutting up the tube they used to heat the CO2.








_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52971 - 09/09/14 08:18 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, when you have to start picking on things that don't really apply to the discussion I figure you have lost. What does the length of the tube have to do with your misguided claim that the CO2 from the bottle is prewarmed? The bottle has too much thermal mass to warm up from the heat lamps in the time that the demonstration takes place. Try it, place a heat source adjacent to a mass of about 5 lbs (2 kg) and see how long it takes the temperature of the far side of the mass to warm up 1 degree. Then check to see just how much a gas cools when it is released from a pressurized container. I think you will find that the gas cools a lot faster than the bottle warms up. And since the gas is cooler than the air it doesn't have time to warm up to above air temperature while it is flowing through the tube. In fact you are making statements that don't really make any sense in order to bolster your claims.

So there it is, you lose again when your claims are compared to reality.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52972 - 09/09/14 11:41 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Well, when you have to start picking on things that don't really apply to the discussion I figure you have lost.


everything I have picked on does apply to the discussion.

Quote:
What does the length of the tube have to do with your misguided claim that the CO2 from the bottle is prewarmed?


Bill , Im actually surprised at you , being a global warming enthusiast
and not knowing why the length of the tube would have
an effect on the temperature of the CO2 inside it.

if the tube were only 1 inch long and it had 2 heat lamps
shinning on the tube , it could still possibly slightly
heat the slowly released CO2 that is released from the bottle.

but 10 ft or so at that distance confines the CO2 , and the
tube definitely would heat up and heat the CO2.

the experiment itself is about confined CO2 being heated
by heat lamps , only the heat that can enter the tube is
much greater than the heat that can enter the canisters
because glass reflects IR and only visible light passes through
the glass canisters.

Quote:
The bottle has too much thermal mass to warm up from the heat lamps in the time that the demonstration takes place.


at 1:10 into the video , Bill Nye says within minutes you will
see the , bla , bla , bla

I take it that the demonstration took minutes.

Quote:
Try it, place a heat source adjacent to a mass of about 5 lbs (2 kg) and see how long it takes the temperature of the far side of the mass to warm up 1 degree.


why would I need to wait till the far side warms 1 degree
the heat that I am concerned with in the experiment would
be the heat that rises inside the bottle to the neck of the bottle , not any heat that might be felt on the far side
of the bottle or the bottom of the bottle if that was going
to be your next attempt.


I suppose you understand that the bottle itself will be
radiating its surface heat to the glass canister filled
with CO2 , the canister then radiates its heat to the CO2
in the canister and to the small globe inside the canister.

this causes the globe closest to the black CO2 bottle
(which just happens to be the one that supposedly shows the
hazards of CO2 or global warming)
to receive more heat because it also gets heat from the black bodied bottle of CO2.

Quote:
In fact you are making statements that don't really make any sense in order to bolster your claims.


I think you have that backwards , Bill.
you seem to be the one who makes statements that don't apply
or don't make any sense in order to bolster your claim
that I am wrong.

Quote:
So there it is, you lose again when your claims are compared to reality.


I cant see it Bill , your grasping at straws trying to
finally find me to be wrong about something , and it seems
that you are going to a great extent to accomplish your dream.

but hold on to your dream , Bill
keep it up and remember as long as theres still some
glint of hope to accomplish your dream the struggle getting
there can be lessened by knowing that a broken
clock is always right 2 times each and every day.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52974 - 09/10/14 04:49 AM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
The lame claims are plain ...and mundane. wink
...or ...it's all a big conspiracy, right
?
===

Paul, I thought you agreed CO2 was a greenhouse gas, absorbing certain
wavelengths of IR heat; but that you then deduced it must block or
reflect the incoming solar heat away from the surface,
instead of blocking or reflecting the outgoing ground heat back to the surface.

Why are you now trying to find particular flaws with (what I assume are)
the many and varied online videos showing that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas?

Is your problem with how CO2 works, or how the greenhouse effect operates?

~ confused
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#52977 - 09/10/14 02:31 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: samwik]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I have been wondering a little about that. He first found a video that showed that CO2 does absorb IR, then tried to morph that into showing that it doesn't cause global warming. I never quite figured that our. So now he finds a video that shows CO2 does absorb heat and warm the atmosphere. So he is trying to show that it is a fake. Of course he doesn't repeat the experiment to show how it was faked. He just claims that it is obvious that there are flaws. Well, obvious to him. And of course it is also obvious that the Sun, Moon, and stars go around the Earth. But to my way of thinking the Geo-centric universe is more obvious than his observations about the demonstration. That is what happens when you are dedicated to a belief that is very hard to maintain in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Of course Paul is not alone. I live in Oklahoma, USA and we have the misfortune to have Jim Inhofe as our senior Senator. He is also adamantly against the idea of global warming. Of course Oklahoma is very much driven by the energy industry, which doesn't want the government interfering in their right to burn coal and oil (or at least sell them to people who will burn them). In general the energy industry is happy with the way things are as long as they can make profits from them. And they are willing to spend money to keep from having to change their ways.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#53001 - 09/13/14 11:23 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul, I thought you agreed CO2 was a greenhouse gas, absorbing certain
wavelengths of IR heat


I do believe that CO2 atoms do absorb certain wavelengths of
IR light ( this cannot be construed to be IR heat ).

the energy of the absorbed IR photon is used up by the
CO2 molecule during the state change of the atoms when the electrons
of the atoms move outwards, conservation of energy...


there is no thermal heat built up in the CO2 molecule , there
is only a build up of kinetic energy that is stored in
the electrons of the CO2 molecules atoms.



Quote:
but that you then deduced it must block or
reflect the incoming solar heat away from the surface,


I deducted ( through previously gathered data ) the following
about CO2.

logic suggest that almost all of the CO2 atoms that
are located on the daytime side of the earth that faces
the sun in the earths atmosphere have already been excited
by photons of IR light and the electrons in the CO2 atoms
have already moved outwards to a higher orbit.

these excited CO2 atoms cannot further absorb any
IR light until they undergo a state change emitting
a IR photon. ( a photon of the same wavelength )

the video with the candle is what convinced me that the CO2
must be reflecting the IR light , because none of the IR light
was penetrating the CO2 and entering the camera.

the IR light had to go somewhere , the atoms in the
CO2 molecule cannot continually absorb more and more
IR light.

and according to the candle video science is wrong about IR light
passing the CO2 molecules by if the atoms are already excited.

according to the candle video after the atoms in a CO2
molecule have absorbed an IR photon all other IR photons
will be reflected by that particular CO2 molecule.

if you have another video that clearly shows differently

then please post it.

also and until then , I now understand why the GWA's
do not FOCUS on the incoming IR.

its a game buster.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#53002 - 09/14/14 01:38 AM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
I deducted ( through previously gathered data ) the following about CO2.

Right Paul, you deducted the real science from your observations and reached a false conclusion.

I think you really meant deduced, not deducted. Sorry about that I couldn't resist.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#53004 - 09/14/14 09:06 AM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Right Paul, you deducted the real science from your observations and reached a false conclusion.


yes , my observations



Quote:
I think you really meant deduced, not deducted. Sorry about that I couldn't resist.


you should have resisted , and looked up the definition yourself.

BTW , you lose again



deducted

Quote:
v. de·duct·ed, de·duct·ing, de·ducts
v.tr.
1. To take away (a quantity) from another; subtract.
2. To derive by deduction; deduce.
v.intr.
To take away a desirable part: Poor plumbing deducts from the value of the house.



deduction

Quote:
1. The act of deducting; subtraction.
2. An amount that is or may be deducted: tax deductions.
3. The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning; the act of deducing.
4. Logic
a. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
b. A conclusion reached by this process.


I bet you thought you had finally found me to be wrong , thats
what happens when you just assume that others are correct , you
see you relied on a false assumption that I was wrong because sam
used the word deduced.

just like the both of you and the entire GWA's congregation of believers
without cause rely on a high volume of false assumptions about global warming.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#53006 - 09/14/14 03:48 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
But the most common usage of deduct is to remove, such as when they deduct taxes from your wages before you receive them, and the way you deduct science from your claims before you post them.

But that is enough of that or Rose will be getting down on us.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#53018 - 09/15/14 12:44 PM Re: Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
and the way you deduct science from your claims before you post them.


perhaps science shouldn't allow so many deductions
that make science so deductible!

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.