Hadley CRU isn’t the only government agency that deletes web content related to climate. NOAA/NWS Southern Region Headquarters has gotten into the act. An interesting thing happened today. NOAA deleted an educational web page about an experiment you can do with CO2.
Ordinarily such a thing would go unnoticed, especially since it doesn’t impact anything particularly important like policy, or climate data. It’s just an experiment for kids in the classroom.
Fortunately, I still had the web page open in my browser. I had been looking at it yesterday, and I had been thinking I might try the experiment myself with a datalogging thermometer, just for fun.
Here’s the web page as it was open in my browser:
And here is what the same URL looks like now:
You can try it out for yourself:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
What could cause NOAA to pull a web page like this on a moment’s notice?
Two things.
1 It was featured on Climate Depot yesterday.
2 It had this passage that must not have agreed with somebody higher up in the NOAA food chain:
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
Or maybe it was this one:
The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.
So rather than corrupt young minds with a simple science experiment with some inconvenient language attached to it, NOAA simply deleted it. Of course nothing is really deleted on the Internet anymore. NOAA looks pretty silly thinking it would go away with a simple delete.
The Wayback machine has the missing web page for posterity:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060129154229/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
Now it looks like I’ll have to run their simple experiment. Stay tuned.
Wouldn’t the simple fact that the bottle with seltzer in it has more mass imply more energy transferred from the lamps and thus, a higher temperature, irrespective of whether or not it there was more CO2? I would think the experiment would only be valid for the purpose they are attempting to illustrate if you had the same amount of mass in each bottle (gas and liquid).
Mark
Oh, Boy. A completely open field to romp through.
This looks really, really difficult to get reasonable data out of. The CO2 path is short, lamps are not very uniform, what do they mean by equal distance, and temperature is tough to measure in the first place to the sort of resolution required. Might have to do a lot of randomized replications.
Other than all that the experiment is fine.
Actually, thinking even deeper, PV = nRT, worked out for each gas present, using partial pressures and proper mass (n), correct?
Mark
REPLY: with seltzer, there is mostly only CO2 present, being heavier than air, it would likely fill the bottle and force out the other gases. -A
“The Wayback machine has the missing web page for posterity:”
So it’s in NOAA’s arc?
I am guessing the chemical reaction that causes the fizz fizz of the seltzer tablets builds up quite a head of heat. I use a similar experiment to shoot the lids off old plastic film canisters with a legoman sitting on top.
I did a double-take on the last 2 paragraphs.
Had to page up to check the logo.
It’s interesting that the commentary following the experiment doesn’t offer the result as proof of global warming. Also the comments about the 1997 NASA report that satellite data showed no warming but rather a cooling was a surprise.
Maybe someone at NASA and NOAA has good sense but not enough rank.
I thought something was amiss when the page went missing so fast. Gavin-boy must have racked up the phone charges. I can see the wife shutting the study door so the kids don’t hear daddy cussing like a sailor, “GET THAT $%^&*I S4@7 OFF THE EFFING SERVER NAO!!!”
We need to find out who loses their job over this and make him or her a cause celebre.
What about the Venus info panel on the side? Doesn’t Venus reflect 85% of the Sun’s rays back into space? Doesn’t it periodically re-surface itself with magma, erasing all of the craters that MUST have been there? Is the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus settled science?
Denier Power!
Maybe suspended particulates or a colloid solution? Or an exothermic reaction as previously mentioned?
I saw that webpage the other day too, & wondered about that experiment. Since they do not mention equalising the air pressure in both bottles, wouldn’t the higher pressure in the CO2 one result in higher temperatures with all else being equal?
That page was a joy! Mark T already pointed the PV=nRT balance. No one knows what is the relative pressure of the gaseous fraction of each bottle. Presumably, the one with the seltzer tablet will have a much higher pressure in the gaseous fraction. Considering that the volume will, approximately, stays equal to the other bottle, temperature will surely rise, no matter if it’s CO2 or any other gas. But this is not the most jokey part of the erased page. Pay attention to the Planet Venus “fact” green box. Clearly there’s a complete ignorance about the physical conditions about the Venusian atmosphere. Venus has a pressure, near the planet’s surface, of about 90 atm (earth = 1 atm). This is the main factor that makes venus atmosphere so hot, even ignoring that is closer to the sun than earth, thus it receives more radiation. As a matter of fact, during the Magellan missions, the variation of the temperature of the venus atmosphere with the altitude was measured. At an altitude where the pressure of the Venusian atmosphere is about the same pressure as the earth atmosphere, which occurs at about 49.5km from the planet’s surface, the temperature was about 57ºC. For these reasons, venus atmosphere cannot be used as a simplistic example to explain the paper of the “so called” greenhouse gases.
Wouldn’t the temperature also rise due to the increase in pressure from the CO2, particularly as the seltzer would probably release gas even without the heat lamp?
Oops; too popular Anth! – getting “all our circuits are busy now” message from wayback machine:
.
.
.
“with seltzer, there is mostly only CO2 present, being heavier than air, it would likely fill the bottle and force out the other gases. -A”
Check that the experiment talks about sealing the top of the bottle with molding clay. This way no gas is forced out and potentially rising the pressure of the gaseous fraction. I’m saying this because the experiment does not refer if the sealing is made after all seltzer tablet is consumed.
Anthony, it will be interesting to hear your test results. I see a lot of problems with this experiment. My prediction is that any temperature difference seen will have absolutely nothing to do with the >10,000 ppm CO2 concentration in the gaseous volume above the liquid.
On the other hand, its a perfect science fair experiment, with plenty of opportunities to learn about how difficult it is to design a clean experiment.
Anthony,
Deepclimate may be the culprit…
http://deepclimate.org/2009/11/02/contrarian-education-noa/
OT,
Stop breathing or we’ll kill the fish.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102171559.htm
I am beginning to wonder what the difference between a government scientist and a prostitute is.
The waybackmachine link gave me a “Failed Connection” error page.
Speaking of experiments, has there been ANY lab-scale experiment done to verify the GH effect of CO2 and the likelihood of positive feedback mechanism through increased water vaporization?
I know the dog ate my homework excuse is lame.
But the dog ate the homework I set the class from a teacher, is a cacker.
Using Venus to demonstrate C02 as a GHG is ridiculous. Venus’ orbit is .72 AU, so due to the inverse square law receives roughly double the intensity of sunlight. Add a 243 day period of rotation, and a nearly pure C02 atmosphere, and the day side literally cooks for months on end.
Hardly representative of earth’s situation.
haha, great work Anthony! this is funny — and very embarassing for NOAA. With 2 million hits per month, and rising, more embarrassment for NOAA?
That’s a great ‘model’,showing how CO2 in the’atmosphere’ comes from outgassing of the comparitively large body of water beneath it….and not a fossil fuel in sight!
Layne Blanchard (21:30:32) :
Using Venus to demonstrate C02 as a GHG is ridiculous. Venus’ orbit is .72 AU, so due to the inverse square law receives roughly double the intensity of sunlight. Add a 243 day period of rotation, and a nearly pure C02 atmosphere, and the day side literally cooks for months on end.
Hardly representative of earth’s situation.
The Venusian atmosphere itself rotates in about four days, the temperatures are pretty uniform on both day and night side of the planet. Still comparing today’s earth with Venus is like comparing apples to pears, two completely different planets and a sun that is not strong enough to deliver the required amounts of watts per square meter to cause a positive watervapour feedback that eventually leeds to CO2 outgassing of rocks.
But it is a future that awaits our own planet in a pretty distant future, perhaps in a billion years time when the sun gets hot enough to start a runaway greenhouse here on earth. Nothing to worry about for a long time, a very long time. In the highly unlikely event that we are still around during that time the only option is to move place.
In other words, a scare story in the current “Global Warming Hysteria”.
So that’s what passes for entertainment in Oregon these days? 😉
Here someone tried a similar experiment
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Speaking of this experiment, I’ve always wanted to know what would happen to air temperature if a bunch of equal sized rooms (or bottles or whatever) were filled with air and different amounts CO2 and placed in an area where the get equal amounts of solar radiation. I’d also like to see this done with different amounts of water vapor, from 0 to 100% humidity.
Does anybody know if this has ever been tried?
I think we have a mole! Maybe someone at NOAA is reading this site daily. Yesterday I put the following comments in the tips section and today it’s gone…
Anthony, I would suggest that you do the experiment with and without the cap on the bottle and also with and without the lamp…. just to prove the point that the pressure is responsible for the temperature rise.
From yesterday:
Ray (12:13:18) :
Looks like the guys at NOAA put up their definitive proof experiment up on their site: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
The funny thing about the reaction (i.e. citric acid + baking soda) is that it is endothermic (absorbs heat). Yet, they claim that the temperature increases due to the presence of CO2 in the bottle and the light that shines on it. At the end they again tell how complicated climate science is and bring back the idea that the Venus atmosphere is hot because it is 96% CO2. They don’t say anything about the effect of gas pressure on the temperature of the gas. In their little experiment that “proves” global warming is due to CO2, I suspect that the increase of the pressure in the bottle makes the temperature increase to such extend that it also provides heat to the endothermic reaction. This is a so pathetic experiment that high school chemistry teachers will show that demo to their students and conclude that CO2 = Anthropogenic Global Warming.
2
11
2009
Ray (12:16:14) :
Just to add to my post… maybe you should take a sceenshot of that page at NOAA… they might remove it once the bad science is exposed… I bet that doing this in the dark will also have the temperature increase in the bottle containg the Alka-Seltzer since it is a pressure effect that is suspected.
The page still exists on the NOAA website at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
OT but what’s up with the current lack of “weather”? Current North American cloud cover and storm systems are practically nil. Record daily high temps for the first three days of November in Phoenix. Nothing on the horizon coming down from the Great White North….
So it seems that someone in NOAA knows that the hypothesis of CAGW has been falsified!
Perhaps they should point this out to the IPCC ?
PV=kT
Back2Bat (21:15:29) wanted to know “what the difference between a government scientist and a prostitute is.”
Easy. The pension plan.
SteveBrooklineMA (22:15:40) :
So many things are wrong with that experiment.
1. Pure CO2 compared to an atmosphere containing 350 ppm. How real is this for the Earth?
2. A black sheet of carboard at the bottom of the tanks that represents the surface of the Earth… I did not know we lived on a black body!
3. Since it contains pure CO2, the water vapour pressure is near zero, thus only CO2 will absorb the infrared radiation.
4. Removing the water vapour from the tank containg pure CO2 will permit more radiation to reach the black carboard, thus it will get warmer in the dry tank.
5. I would expect the same results if the tank was filled with dry nitrogen.
Boy are you getting a dose of what Oregon is ALL about.
Of course that was taken down for it’s blasphemous content.
It’s a little surprising it was there in the first place. But my point about Oregon is there is not a single government entity where anything remotely contradictory or outside the agenda is tolerated. For a long time.
Not at any level. Not the municipal, county, regional or state level.
Now that former Oregon State University Professor Jane Lubchenco heads NOAA she’s cleaning things up the Oregon way.
Next you’ll see a new and broadening campaign by NOAA to better educate the public. The Oregon way.
It’s so bad here that our former yet sitting Secretary of State traveled the state giving Al Gore power point presentations.
It may be that someone actually read this “experiment” and thought it was a bunch of hooey – thus, then removing it. If what it claims to show isn’t true, that would be embarrassing. Posters here at WUWT seem to think it isn’t true – thus it should not have been put up, or, having been put up, should be removed as soon as its low science coefficient was realized.
So, what’s up with the “table top lamp” that is used as “a source of heat”? How close is it supposed to be to the bottles? Is it supposed to heat with the shortwave light? Or what? An oven heated brick or cement block would be a better representation of Earth than a light bulb.
Anyway, the whole thing is odd – from the experiment, its Venus sidebar, and its removal. But maybe I don’t understand this as well as NOAA; they, in case you have missed it, are a:
“. . . society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts, and atmosphere in the global ecosystem . . .” and “. . . understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment. . . ”
gtrip, we are getting weather alerts for a cold front heading our way from the northern Pacific. This is a big one with major ocean swells. NE Oregon temps have been below normal.
Boffin (22:45:09) :
The page still exists on the NOAA website at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
That one has gone too now.
gtrip (22:46:19) “weather”?
Watch your language! A large moisture laden storm is due Thursday on the PNW coast. I’ll go out and do a dance and see if I can’t redirect it your way if that will make you happy.
More on my previous comment…
If you look at this plot of the emission spectrum of a tungsten lamp, you will notice that the maximum emission is around 1 micron. Now, if you superimpose this emission spectrum to that of the absorption of water and also CO2 ( http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png ) you can see that the water vapours will absorb more radiation than CO2 will. Absorption of infrared radiation does not necessarily mean increase of temperature… so this could support that removing the water vapours from the tank (by displacement) will have the black body absorb more radiations and as it is a black body, the gas above it will heat up more if the tank is dry.
Old man winter is about to bite us in the arse. And you thought nothing is going on with the weather. Who washed their car? That’s what I want to know.
SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PORTLAND OR
407 PM PST TUE NOV 3 2009
ORZ001>014-WAZ019>023-039-040-040815-
NORTH OREGON COAST-CENTRAL OREGON COAST-
COAST RANGE OF NORTHWEST OREGON-
CENTRAL COAST RANGE OF WESTERN OREGON-LOWER COLUMBIA-
GREATER PORTLAND METRO AREA-CENTRAL WILLAMETTE VALLEY-
SOUTH WILLAMETTE VALLEY-WESTERN COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE-
NORTHERN OREGON CASCADE FOOTHILLS-NORTHERN OREGON CASCADES-
CASCADE FOOTHILLS IN LANE COUNTY-CASCADES IN LANE COUNTY-
UPPER HOOD RIVER VALLEY-SOUTH WASHINGTON CASCADES-WILLAPA HILLS-
SOUTH WASHINGTON COAST-I-5 CORRIDOR IN COWLITZ COUNTY-
GREATER VANCOUVER AREA-SOUTH WASHINGTON CASCADE FOOTHILLS-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF…ASTORIA…CANNON BEACH…TILLAMOOK…
LINCOLN CITY…NEWPORT…FLORENCE…VERNONIA…JEWELL…TRASK…
GRANDE RONDE…TIDEWATER…SWISSHOME…ST. HELENS…CLATSKANIE…
HILLSBORO…PORTLAND…OREGON CITY…GRESHAM…SALEM…
MCMINNVILLE…DALLAS…EUGENE…CORVALLIS…ALBANY…HOOD RIVER…
CASCADE LOCKS…MULTNOMAH FALLS…SANDY…
SILVER FALLS STATE PARK…SWEET HOME…GOVERNMENT CAMP…
DETROIT…SANTIAM PASS…VIDA…LOWELL…COTTAGE GROVE…
MCKENZIE BRIDGE…OAKRIDGE…WILLAMETTE PASS…PARKDALE…ODELL…
COLDWATER RIDGE VISITORS CENTER…MOUNT ST. HELENS…FRANCES…
RYDERWOOD…RAYMOND…LONG BEACH…CATHLAMET…LONGVIEW…KELSO…
CASTLE ROCK…STEVENSON…SKAMANIA…VANCOUVER…BATTLE GROUND…
WASHOUGAL…TOUTLE…ARIEL…COUGAR
407 PM PST TUE NOV 3 2009
…STRONG COLD FRONT TO IMPACT REGION WITH RAIN…WIND…AND HEAVY
SWELLS ALONG THE BEACHES LATE THIS WEEK…
A STRONG LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM IS BEGINNING TO GET ORGANIZED IN THE
GULF OF ALASKA TODAY…AND WILL RAPIDLY STRENGTHEN INTO A POWERFUL
STORM TONIGHT AND WEDNESDAY. WHILE THE CENTER OF THIS LOW PRESSURE
SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO REMAIN IN THE GULF OF ALASKA…IT WILL PUSH
A STRONG COLD FRONT ONSHORE INTO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST THURSDAY.
WINDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FRONT MAY GUST AS HIGH AS 50 TO 60 MPH
NEAR THE BEACHES AND COASTAL HEADLANDS THURSDAY…AS WELL AS
ACROSS THE HIGHER TERRAIN OF THE COAST RANGE AND CASCADES. THE
FRONT WILL LIKELY BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PERIOD OF HEAVY RAIN…
ESPECIALLY IN THE COAST RANGE WHERE UP TO 2 TO 3 INCHES OF RAIN
ARE POSSIBLE THURSDAY THROUGH THURSDAY NIGHT.
SNOW LEVELS WILL START OFF WELL ABOVE THE CASCADE PASSES EARLY
THURSDAY…BUT ARE EXPECTED TO FALL QUICKLY AS THE FRONT MOVES
ACROSS THE CASCADES THURSDAY AFTERNOON AND EVENING. BY FRIDAY
MORNING…ACCUMULATING SNOW IS POSSIBLE AS LOW AS SOME OF THE
CASCADE PASSES. WITH COOL UNSETTLED WEATHER EXPECTED TO CONTINUE
FOR SEVERAL DAYS BEHIND THE FRONT…SNOW SHOWERS MAY CONTINUE
THROUGH THE WEEKEND AS LOW AS 3000 TO 4000 FEET IN ELEVATION.
ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE GULF OF ALASKA STORM SYSTEM WILL
BE THE VERY LARGE OCEAN SWELL EXPECTED TO DEVELOP AS THE STORM
STRENGTHENS WEDNESDAY. THIS SWELL MAY BEGIN IMPACTING THE SOUTH
WASHINGTON AND NORTH OREGON COAST WITH HIGH SURF AS EARLY AS
THURSDAY MORNING…WITH THE STRONGEST WAVES IMPACTING THE BEACHES
THURSDAY NIGHT THROUGH SATURDAY. THE HEAVY SURF MAY PROVIDE THE
POSSIBILITY FOR MINOR COASTAL FLOODING DURING HIGH TIDE…AND THE
LARGE BREAKERS MAY PRODUCE HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ALONG THE
BEACHES.
the emission spectrum of a tungsten lamp:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intdept/i42/Planckspect.gif
I fancy one of those data logger thingies. How do I get one in the UK?
Tried an experiment some months ago. Suspended a one foot diameter quarter inch thick piece of boiler plate one inch above a container of water. The steel plate plate was heated until a drop of water sizzled, (somewhere around 100C). Was unable to read any change on a mecury thermometer. Oh, and the water container is insulated on sides and bottom. The object was to see if infrared radiation would heat water. Fun anyway.
I am guessing the chemical reaction that causes the fizz fizz of the seltzer tablets builds up quite a head of heat. I use a similar experiment to shoot the lids off old plastic film canisters with a legoman sitting on top.
So that’s what passes for entertainment in Oregon these days? 😉
With the very Progressive government in Oregon, and thus one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, they’ve got to come up with something to pass the time.
I wonder if they have sacked the person responsible for this site.
One thing is for sure, the Green establishment is watching WUWT and Climate Depot like a hawk and the moment one of their “domains” is walking out of pace, be sure they get an angry phone call.
“how much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.”
Sorry. Has the English teacher in cadet school gone missing??
“Who washed their car?” Pam who am in Oregon.
Pam,
I prayed for cold weather but only on the AGW crowd and their accomplishes. Oregon should be safe shouldn’t it?
Important questions:
Will Congress cap and tax seltzer?
Will the EPA declare seltzer to be a dangerous pollutant?
Will there eventually a black market for seltzer?
I plan to stock up and secretly hoard the stuff starting tomorrow.
http://swenglishrantings.com/swenglishrantings/Docs/ll_gas.htm
Here’s another snapshot of NOAA’s page from the following site.
Note their header:
“NOAA erased the current version of this web page Nov, 3rd 2009
We must be getting real close to the Copenhagen conferences”
http://swenglishrantings.com/swenglishrantings/Docs/ll_gas.htm
Pamela Gray (23:19:42) :
Is Al Gore going to visit your area? That could explain things.
It’s funny how the green “Fast Facts” about CO2 and Venus sounds like what Gore was saying. Since we know that Gavin Schmidt at NOAA admitted to talking to Gore at several occasion for Gore’s new book, it is surely not a big stretch to know where those Fast Facts come from. It’s not the first facts they got wrong… Fast Food, Fast Facts… both are bad for ya!
What a crock, Earth’s atmosphere is about as far removed from a SEALED bottle as it is from a GREENHOUSE (i.e. a HOTHOUSE or whatever it is you call an atmospheric controlled environment for growing tomatoes etc.)
CO2 is already doing most of its warming potential in Earth’s atmosphere, the first 20ppmv, as we are now at about 380ppmv, to double or treble it would make so little difference to temperature it would be unmeasurable.
Current PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC STUPIDITY (PSS SYNDROME) is worse than STUPID and THICKER than TWO SHORT PLANKS.
Back2Bat (21:15:29) :
OT,
Stop breathing or we’ll kill the fish.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102171559.htm
I am beginning to wonder what the difference between a government scientist and a prostitute is.
~~~~
The prostitue is upfront about what she’s doing.
Mr Watts, please!
“being heavier than air”
Denser! Not heavier!
REPLY: It is both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Anthony,
There is also another way to prove the page was there. Anyone can insert the following query into Google:
“The seltzer tablets supplied” site:noaa.gov
Than, just click on the “Cached” link…
Ecotretas
I thought it was surprising they admitted no trend. Probably why they took it down. The venus thing bothered me since a day on Venus takes like 243 earth days. Talk about well done.
Its a really good information being shared I called this fast fact finding and good for children.
The take down is the handiwork of the mystery man. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/350/comment-page-3/#comment-139976.
Reply: By Jove I think he’s got it! ~ charles the moderator
This page was put up sometime before 2003, a bit before the current hysteria had completely forced staff compliance.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031015060515/www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
gt (21:23:26)
Angstrom, himself put the theories of Keeling and Arrhenius to the test by placing as much c02 as was to be found in the atmosphere in a long tube. He doubled and halved the amount of c02. It was found that the amount of radiation getting through the tube did not change. He put water vapour in the experiment and found that the temperature did retain heat, leading to the conclusion that vapour was 99,99% of the greenhouse effect. This disproved Arrhenius’s theory.
However, this experiment is easily replicable and has to be undertaken to replicate atmospheric air pressure. I’ve done it myself in the lab, and the result is that c02 doesn’t retain heat or increase the temperature on this basis. The difference is the presence of water vapour high. Water vapour’s micron bandwidth coincides with many of earth’s outgoing radiation bandwidths. c02 only associates with 15 microns, which is subzero energy, as is to be found in polar regions.
Maurice J Smalley (00:22:58)
it turns out that the first 85ppm has the same effect effect as any further addition of c02 has, regarding absorbtion in a lab experiment
If one compares Earths’ atmosphere to Venus’ – then one should also mention Mars.
Mars has ~95% CO2 in i its atmosphere, but in no way extreme heat and is actually notoriously poor at retaining heat in its’ atmosphere.
The atm. preasure is however only about 0,01 compared to Earths, so this correlates perfectly with the theory that the preasure/density, rather than the composition, is responsible for most heat retention.
But then again, Mars’ atmosphere is void of the most powerful GHG of them all: water vapor.
ps ideally, the experiement ought to be performed over a range of 15C-20C in at least a 1 metre tube, or better still a 1m/2 chamber or, larger
This is a fantastic presentation which captures what technology is all about. Thanks you for sharing and may you have many thought provoking conversations.
Meanwhile down on the farm… what’s happening to the UK’s Science Museum Website? (It’s currently responding with a “Server is too busy” page.)
I has just popped over there to check on the “Prove-It” scores, as I have a pet theory that says the (last seen) ratio of ~1 (In): 6 (Out) was going to dramatically change when the English schoolkids returned this week from their half-term break; “Now class we have an IT project to do, remember how CO2 is BAD, well now is your chance to prove it. Jenkins! Do NOT press the ‘out’ button, 30 minutes detention boy”.
Cheers
Mark
Typical – it’s back up now; current scores 1542:6312.
Theory dealt a potentially fatal blow, ah well that’s paranoia for you :o)
Cheers
Mark
I’ve got an idea for an experiment, but this is for adults and much more fun !
Take one empty and heated sauna, and 6 naked adults. First stage, measure the temperature of the empty sauna. This represents Earth and it’s atmosphere before man existed. Log the data. Second Stage, all adults to enter the sauna and talk profusely for about 30 minutes, measure the temperature. This represents mans contribution to the global CO2 production.
Third Stage, pour two ladles of water onto the hot coals, allow steam to settle for about 5 minutes and measure the temperature. This represents the effect of water vapour on temperature in the atmosphere. Finally, turn up the thermostat by 5 degrees, allow to stabilise for about 5 minutes and measure the temperature. This represents an increase in the Sun’s activity and it’s effect on our planet’s temperature. Compile all data and share for peer review. To complete, all participants to dash to the bar for some cold beers. This doesn’t represent anything, but after spending nearly an hour in a hot sauna, it might be appreciated !!
Sorry for the automatic translation
1 .- The acid-base chemical reaction that generates CO2 is exothermic, it releases heat.
2 .- The concentration of CO2 in the bottle is thousands of times higher than that of the atmosphere.
3 .- The bottles should be exposed to the sun. The incoming solar radiation has a wavelength range of fully or partially saturating CO2
4 .- The radiation from the lamp is far from representing the emission of the planet’s surface.
5 .- The effervescence of air humidity increases, this factor is itself a greenhouse.
The experiment is so simple it would take an idiot to equate it with a planet’s climate system.
Re: NOAA page.
The second URL offered by posters above seems to be much the same page in a slightly different page layout (subject to browser variations) – and last updated (so it says) in 2005. I can see it from here – has it just been blocked for US access? 😉
Re: Mark Fawcett/Prove_IT
You know I often wonder if the number see-saw is simply a bad programming result. If one decided to present a numeric value in a screen ‘field’ limited to a 4 digit display the numbers could jump all over the place once they hit 5 digits for the first 1000 of every new ten-thousand thereafter. Of course that is probably far too simplistic to be some part of the the answer to the puzzle …
Another simple experiment:
1. Take a culture of bacteria in a flask (representing the single celled life forms that make up most of the earth’s biomass). Measure the CO2 concentration above the culture.
2. Increase the temperature of the culture. Measure the CO2 concentration again over the next hour. Has the CO2 concentration changed? Suggest reasons.
3. Now take a similar culture of bacteria. Measure the temperature. Introduce a small amount of CO2 into the flask. Measure the temperature again over the next hour. Has the temperature changed? Suggest reasons.
On Google cache at the moment,
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
this link from the page is also broken,
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/Fig_D.txt
O/T, but here’s the latest from Moonbat – people disagree with him because they are old and frightened of dying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/climate-change-denial-clive-james
At least he admits they’re losing!
Ripper (23:16:45) :
Boffin (22:45:09) :
The page still exists on the NOAA website at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
That one has gone too now.
I just accessed and saved it. Maybe it was getting too many hits, last time you tried.
[b] Tim Channon (20:32:47) :
“The Wayback machine has the missing web page for posterity:”
So it’s in NOAA’s arc?[/b]
OUCH !!!
SteveBrooklineMA (22:15:40) :
Thanks for the link – it is good to see the results of a true experiment.
I was interested to see that there was no evidence of runaway warming in this experiment, despite a 1,000,000ppm concentration of CO2.
Sorry, Anthony, this is an OT comment but the comment box has disappeared from the tips and notes page. Please feel free to delete but I thought this important enough to mention:
Belief in climate change is now a step closer to be protected in UK law after today’s ruling in an unfair dismissal case:
In a landmark court ruling, a judge ruled that Tim Nicholson’s views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as “religious or philosophical beliefs”.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Beliefs-about-climate-change-ruled.5791898.jp
Make of it what you wish but I think this is getting insane – and just imagine protecting the views of some of the more extreme political factions…
google cache found me the original page
It was clearly removed because it was wrong.
Someone has been updating this recently, the last update to the page was made in January 2008 with this inclusion:
“In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930’s with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20080103132548/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm
And the claim about the satellite record showing no warming for example is completely outdated and now incorrect so cannot be left up.
A bottle is a literal greenhouse; it prevents convection no matter what atmosphere it contains. Whatever the experiment may or may not show, it doesn’t show that CO2 affects the radiation balance. In short the experiment is just a con and should have been taken down. The only surprise is that it has been.
PS: the Science Museum vote is up and down like a yo-yo. Who knows what will come out of that exercise.
Mike Nicholson (02:51:22) :
I’ve got an idea for an experiment, but this is for adults and much more fun !
Take one empty and heated sauna, and 6 naked adults.
Give every adult a six pack of beer to drink in the sauna.
I wonder when they will outlaw beer and soda pop. If we opened every can of pop and beer in the grocery store, after shaking them, and shut off the ventilation, would we die?
This is tangentially on-topic I suppose.
Last year in my graduate level atmospheric science class, I did the following demonstration:
I fitted a pressure gauge and a valve on a two liter bottle. I weighed the bottle. I pressurized the bottle to 80 PSI, thus effectively adding roughly 8 liters of air to the bottle. We then calculated the mass of 8 liters of air, and sure enough, when we re-weighed the bottle, it weighed about that much more than it had before.
I then weighed an empty 30 liter trash bag, then filled it up with air and tied it off. I asked the other students to predict how much more the bag would weigh when full of air. Of course the full bag weighed exactly the same as the empty one.
Part of my conclusion was that weight is simply a force that can be exerted in any direction, and if the air is buoyant, it has no weight. Thus weight is not an inherent property of air, but that mass is.
My PhD physics teacher and I disagreed fiercely on whether air always has weight. He said that if the air is being acted on by gravity it has weight, even if it is the air in the Space Station. I said that weight is nothing but force, and if the air is not exerting a force on the scale it has no weight.
Who was right?
Robert van der Veeke (22:13:32) :
“But it is a future that awaits our own planet in a pretty distant future, ”
Actually, no, you are wrong there. Venus has 92 times the atmosphere that Earth has because it never had life evolve to reduce most of its atmosphere into limestone rock that make up much of the continents. Earth once had 52 times more atmosphere than it has now, and all that is now tied up in the limestone bedrock, never to be breathed again. The Earth will never have that as atmosphere again, so the state of Venus will never be the future that awaits our own planet.
Instead, life will continue to sequester CO2 over time into limestone, even if we burn all the fossil fuels there are, it will all be rebound as limestone by ocean corals, until there is no CO2 left, leaving the Earth as a permanent ice planet with a pristine nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, until the day that the Sun suddenly swells up into a red giant (rather quickly mind you) and engulfs Mercury, Venus, and Earth.
Mars will then get treated like Mercury, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn will become somewhat enjoyable locales.
Jeff, unemployment in Oregon has always been higher than the national average, even when only one Democrat lived in the state. It was also high when only one Republican lived in Wallowa County. The current rate has nothing to do with progressive green policies. We are still a very scattered and agrarian/wood products working population. Unemployment is chronic, made worse by any downturn in the new housing market. But we survive. Most of us know where to kil* [cough] find food.
DennisA, it is still there from where I’m sitting.
Spot the difference in the two versions of the National Weather Service JetStream Learning Lessons.
Version A
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/append/lessonplans.htm
Version B
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/append/lessonplans.htm
OT but interesting: First snow in Copenhagen
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/danmark/regionaludsigten/kbhnsj.htm
Not totally off-topic:
Here’s Note I put up on Facebook, especially to gig the CO2-is-evil crowd, but no one noticed or didn’t get where it was going. If anyone knows a site with a good sense of (as well as knowledge!), please let me know.
Start:
“Preliminary Ramblings on My Brilliant Plan”
“How to heroically save the planet, give the homeless a warm place to sleep at night, have the best tomatoes ever, profit off cap-and-trade, and generally migrate onto a higher moral plane”
Original inspiration and undoubtedly catchier:
“Save the planet – hug a watermelon”
(hat-tip: John)
A work-in-progress.
Some might suggest that this plan would be best presented in its final version; however, in keeping with its altruistic aspects (even profiting off any cap and trade scheme could be done for the benefit of the planet, as Al Gore has demonstrated), I would much prefer to share the glory, and the forthcoming Nobel prize, with any collaborators who might volunteer. There are a number of scientific questions to be researched and time is of the essence (Save the Planet!). In addition, as mentioned in my comment to the previous note, a micro-climate modeler would be most welcome. As also mentioned, any devices invented by me would be my gracious gift to the world.
Some of us know that when 2 people sleep during a blizzard in a canvas pup tent acquired with Green Stamps, they get nice and cozy warm.
Obviously, these are not airtight, or we wouldn’t wake up in the morning due to our own CO2. However, can we presume that the CO2 levels are higher inside the tent than outside?
How much CO2 does an individual emit?
What is the highest level of CO2 in the “ambient air” (just wanted to finally use that term) that can be inhaled by an individual without deleterious effects?
In an airtight environment, how much oxygen would have to be infused in order to maintain the human organism optimally? Any other gases?
Any suggestions to replace “migrate” in the working title?
NB: Tomatoes were chosen for the pilot project since they form an integral part of virtually every cuisine worldwide. Naturally, the principles could then be adapted to any plant, with the possible exception of Acorn squash (see my “what’s on your mind” question).
Whoever is tempted, I’ll beat you to the punch:
“Some people have way too much time on their hands.”
Actually, I don’t, but this may be the pinnacle of achievement in my heretofore ambition-free life.
Off to the day job for now.
Finish.
Any suggestions welcome on where I can put this.
Thanks,
Kendra
Corr:
good sense of humor
It’s been a few years, like about 30, since I’ve had thermodynamics, but if you increase pressure without changing any other parameters, then temperature will increase. I believe Mark T. made reference to this earlier.
On the subject of Venus, exporting a few colonies of CO2 loving bacteria who can tolerate an acidic environment and letting them work for a few centuries could probably reduce the atmospheric pressure on Venus (and hence temperature) to the point of making the planet habitable. Of course the plants and animals would have to be imported from Earth.
If this is true it is THE NEWS that killed AGW
http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-admits-co2-does-not-cause-majority-of-global-warming.html definite story value here IF true…
Well it IS TRUE
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_clears_carbon_dioxide_of_most_blame/ This completely changes the whole scenario “Politically anyway”
Pamela Gray (20:33:41) : “I am guessing the chemical reaction that causes the fizz fizz of the seltzer tablets builds up quite a head of heat. I use a similar experiment to shoot the lids off old plastic film canisters with a legoman sitting on top.”
You obviously had engineering tendencies as a child . . .
However, I believe that when you dissolve seltzer tablets in water there is an endothermic reaction, causing the solution to cool. It is only the release of carbon dioxide that causes the pressure to shoot the lids off of the canisters. In the case of the experiment, the bottles are allowed to sit for an hour before measuring the temperature, which allows the solution to warm back up to room temperature.
Also, the instructions for measuring temperature in the experiment are a little confusing. At first it says to have the temperature probe measure the gas temperature in the bottles, and then later to measure the liquid temperature in the bottles. I would guess that someone did a cut-and-paste from somewhere else, and didn’t clean it up later.
It had to go. There was some resemblance to real scientific method and the questions were not rediculously biased. It needed to be replaced by propaganda like the childish rubbish we see at RC of Deep climate.
Alberto (03:02:00) :
Sorry for the automatic translation
1 .- The acid-base chemical reaction that generates CO2 is exothermic, it releases heat.
2 .- The concentration of CO2 in the bottle is thousands of times higher than that of the atmosphere.
3 .- The bottles should be exposed to the sun. The incoming solar radiation has a wavelength range of fully or partially saturating CO2
4 .- The radiation from the lamp is far from representing the emission of the planet’s surface.
5 .- The effervescence of air humidity increases, this factor is itself a greenhouse.
beat me to it. This is a dirty experiment. The exothermic component and the drastic and unmeasured variance from the actual CO2 on our planet makes this a joke. A kid has no tools to set this up. Get a .03% and equal starting temps.
I take my hat off to ol’ Al and drink a beer in his memory LOL
Jack Barratt and Heinz Hug also conducted c02 experiments using an FT-IR spectrometre. I’m not sure if their results are available online. Certainly, Hug’s metering method added 2.6% water vapour although both found that absorbtion in the peaks accounted for 99.84%, to give very little transmission values to other molecules for any addition of c02. Barrett’s findings were that c02 becomes thermalised with 02, h20 and N2 before re-radiation takes place. It essentially disproves the cascade model used by those who maintain that since c02 does little at ground level, the effect must be taking place elsewhere in the atmosphere, at higher altitudes, where it can reach -50 to -60C. There is no explained mechanism as to how temperatures this extreme can maintain warmth at ground level, so for empirical purposes, if there is a greenhouse effect, it takes place in the first 15 metres from ground level. According to hug, the first 10 metres
oh. I think, or read that the NOAA page is salient because it states:
“It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.”
and
“The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case.”
Bobn (06:13:20) It was clearly removed because it was wrong. “In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930’s with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record.”
So, you’re saying that that actual mercury readings taken in the 1930’s were determined to be in error in the year of 2007? You cannot be serious. They did however change the past data so it appears warmer today. This has been posted many times here, but people like Bobn haven’t seen it, http://i42.tinypic.com/vpx303.jpg
I’m sure there will be typical whining that this is only US temps. Globally, if one removes those nasty-cool rural stations, and just guesses at most of the readings, the temperature can be made to appear warmer yet. http://i27.tinypic.com/14b6tqo.jpg
It is a ‘dirty’ experiment but that’s okay IF the factors that impact on the reliability of the experiment are discussed/coaxed afterward.
Experiment to verify that c02 causes global warming:
1) place a thermometer in a container.
2) Add 1 litre of water
3) Add 200mg of caustic soda and seal the container
4) see how c02 causes the temperature to increase
duh. duh, and double duh
I read somewhere an easy experiment to demonstrate that higher temperatures CAUSE higher CO2. Does anyone know where I can find this again?
drink a cool bottle of coca cola.
after a minute or two, witness the belch. This is the c02 being released due to its temperature increasing in the stomach
This experiment seems more apocryphal than real, there are very few controls for the distance to the heat lamps or the mass inside the experimental container. If the atmosphere’s are swapped from tank to tank, it might control for those variables.
I’ve seen several of these experiments and I wonder if they’ve ever been peer reviewed, or if a reputable organization is willing to vouch for them. Here are the experiments I’ve found:
http://dcdc.asu.edu/K-12Education/greenhouselab.pdf
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
http://www.beloit.edu/sepm/Geology_and_the_enviro/Earth_warming.html
http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html
enduser (07:09:59) :
My PhD physics teacher and I disagreed fiercely on whether air always has weight. He said that if the air is being acted on by gravity it has weight, even if it is the air in the Space Station. I said that weight is nothing but force, and if the air is not exerting a force on the scale it has no weight.
I’m going to answer your question rather obliquely:
Mass=Density * Volume
Force=Mass * Acceleration
“Weight”=Mass * Acceleration due to gravity or “mg”. It will change when the local gravity field changes. So an object will weigh less on the moon, but the mass will remain unchanged.
Orbit is different. A spacecraft is being acted upon by Earth’s gravity and is in a state of “falling” so all the objects inside, including the air, experience “weightlessness”. Here is a short & simple description of what happens in orbit: http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal109/NEWHTF/HTF611A.HTM
Perhaps NOAA feels obligated to remove inaccurate information from their website?
I initially read the name of that page as “jetsam.” Jetsam is less necessary equipment (spare sail, line, provisions, etc.) which is usually ejected from a sinking ship in order to slow the sinking.
In the context of that misreading, irony abounds.
I have a web archive file of the page I captured on 2nd November. Should I send it to NOAA so they can clear their 404 error?
Brian_G (09:42:05)
none of those experiments are valid for a doubling or a quadrupling even of c02 in the atmosphere – nearly all assume either 100% c02 and normal air in the respective chambers. 100% c02 has a different density to normal air.
Valid experiments would be 200ppm, 300ppm 600ppm, 800ppm of c02 subjected to temperature variations of 10C-30C
Mr. Watts so you disagree with this statement “there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.”? Even Lindzen and Spencer would disagree with you….and for what it is worth, McIntyre and his acolytes too.
Steve Keohane: “I’m sure there will be typical whining that this is only US temps”
That’s the entire point of why that particular part had to be removed.
Pamela Gray (23:19:42) :
Old man winter is about to bite us in the arse. And you thought nothing is going on with the weather. Who washed their car? That’s what I want to know.
Gird your loins, I’d only just begun!
Corrigendum: to post at 1:00:49.
Should read “so you agree with this statement”. Sorry for the typo.
Mike Lorrey (07:12:26) :
“Instead, life will continue to sequester CO2 over time into limestone, even if we burn all the fossil fuels there are, it will all be rebound as limestone by ocean corals, until there is no CO2 left, leaving the Earth as a permanent ice planet with a pristine nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere…”
Acid rain! We need more acid rain!
All those, who continue to call Venus as a classic example of the CO2 causing global warming.
Have they ever seen the atmosphere of Mars ???
Are they really so stupid ???
enduser (07:09:59)
The air was exerting a force on the scale. It’s just that your experiment did not change the amount of air exhibiting the force, because you did not change the total volume of the air column pressing downward. In the first part of your experiment, the volume of air was all exterior to the bag. In the second part, some of the volume was contained within the bag. Since the bag was at the same pressure as the atmosphere, the total amount of air had not changed, and was essentially “tared” out of you measurement.
As to the seltzer tablet experiment, FINALLY a connection between my field (pharma) and climate. Selzter tablets are made with sodium bicarbonate and citric acid. If they were only soda bicarb, they would not fizz so energetically. The exothermic nature of the acid/base reaction would raise the temp inside the bottle. It can take quite a while to re-equilibrate a solution to room temp. It is interesting that they say to measure the water temp at the end of an hour. This does seem to indicate that they cut and pasted this experiment, and that it was designed to show something other than the greenhouse effect.
Will the fizzing not increase water vapour in the bottle leading to a higher temperature, rather than the co2? plus the co2 levels in the bottle will be massive compared to the increase in the atmosphere.
I loved the following section though:
“In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.”
I wander if Hansen endored that?
Then there is the classic misleading “look at Venus” example of Co2 causing warming. They mention “crushing pressure” but forget to mention that is what actually results in the plants temperature! Plus is proximity to the sun.
Why dont they also say “look at Mars, it has a 95% co2 atmosphere and the planets freezing cold”?
I keep meaning to try this experiment too, but also to go one step further and see how the bottles cool. It would be interesting if someone could put a proper report together identifying the validity of this experiment taking into account differences in pressure, humidity, specific heat etc in the different bottles.
I was also very interested to see someone above mention an experiment Angstrom did – filling a tube with the same amount of CO2 as in the atmosphere and varying it and finding no difference in radiation. Is this true and verifiable, if so what does it mean for the CO2 gh theory? Can we find out more about Angstroms experiment?
I presume that if we filled a transparent and non conductive bottle with warm (warmer than the surroundings) Nitrogen only it would not cool because Nitrogen would not radiate out the heat? But if we added CO2 it would loose heat by radiation and cool? – so I was wondering what happened if we warmed both the bottles in the above experiment to the same temperature and took them outside on a frosty night or put them in the freezer would they cool at the same rate?
Gavin, on RC, had been notified by a commenter on one of their more recent blog enteries (within the last week or so) discussing this specific page and how it was plain outrageous that it was still in existence.
Gavin replied [I will look into this -gavin] or something of the sort.
Perhaps his power extents into the realm of being the destroyer of ‘obsolete’ opinions…think 1984 here.
No mention that Earth’s atmosphere was once 95% carbon dioxide or how and why it is now only 0.0385%.
C’mon! The ‘fizz’ reaction is an exothermic reaction. Of course the bottle with the seltzer tablet is warmer!
The only thing this ‘experiment’ proved is that seltzer tablets cause Global Warming…..
MikeN (09:21:52) :
Experiment that shows increasing temp causes increased CO2
Refer up to my post at aylamp (03:52:43).
SteveBrooklineMA (22:15:40) : The experiment you link to ( reproduced here: http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm)
is a better, more controlled scientific experiment than the one given on the NOAA webpage. I’m sure its not perfect either, but it would be interesting to run that experiment to steady state, i.e. until the temperatures for both the 100% CO2 and air containers temperatures stabilized to see the final delta T between the two containers. I doubt the delta T would be a significant percent of absolute T. It would be most interesting to run that experiment with air and the other container being just double the concentration of the current atmospheric concentration to steady state. I suspect the delta T would be almost immeasurable. That experiment would still not be even close to a model of the earth’s atmosphere, but would give many non-scientists insight into the insignificance of CO2’s influence on temperature as purely a greenhouse gas.
The debate is not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not. It is. The debate is whether the IPCC models that assume positive temperature feedbacks through various interactions with the atmosphere reflects reality or not.
It seems like a pure calculation of warming that would occur in a hypothetical earth atmosphere with CO2 doubling with all other variables held constant could be done (no feedbacks of any kind). Does anyone know if that has been done? It would be an interesting data point, even if not much could be made of it.
Also, isn’t the Venus atmosphere much more massive? Is not the atmospheric pressure many times greater than Earth’s? Wouldn’t a much more massive atmosphere of almost any kind cause higher temps, let alone the closer proximity to the sun?
Great News about human beings inhabiting Venus.
How many of you posters are using the Ideal Gas law equation to argue anything about temperature? Remember that when you use the PV=nRT equation, that you have to have a volume measurement in the calculation.
What volume measurement are you using to explain the temperature of Venus?
The Ideal Gas law and the PV=nRT equation are used to calculate the change in temperature, pressure or volume when they change in a closed system, and does not apply to the atmosphere of Venus.
Venus also reflects way more light than the earth, so the amount of energy receives from the sun is less than that of earth even though it is closer to the sun, so why again is Venus so hot?
I flubbed the link to the other experiment in my previous post. Here it is again.
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
“Wouldn’t a much more massive atmosphere of almost any kind cause higher temps, let alone the closer proximity to the sun?”
They say that if the earth were in Venus’ orbit, it would only raise the temp by 90 degrees. Venus has temps of 900. The atmosphere reflects most of the sun’s input back out to space.
I think it is another case of a planet which is radiating much more energy than it is receiving. Like Jupiter.
Nobody noticed the obvious spelling error in the title of the page yet?
I mentioned this before: Alka-Seltzer tablets in water are an endothermic reaction, not exothermic. The water will be cooler after dropping the tablets in. Perhaps people are confused by the bubbling? Can we come to some sort of consensus on this?
http://www.pasco.com/chemistry/experiments/online/classic-endothermic-reaction-alka-seltzer-and-water.cfm
http://ccgi.dcpmicro.plus.com/DCPMICRO/files/pdf/teacherresources/s/endothermic%20reaction.pdf
bob (13:55:21)
Whether its Charles law or Boyles or the ideal Gas LAw, during a closed chamber experiment, gases can’t expand so the pressure increases with heat. In the atmosphere, gases can expand so as not to affect their pressure. Supposedly, for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure.
Not sure if you’re referring to closed experiments or the comparative pressure of the atmospheres of earth and venus – not that there is a comparison
bob:
If venus receives less radiation than earth then it can’t be a greenhouse effect. It could only be internal heat that reaches the surface of the planet. The atmospheric density prevents this heat from escaping.
Just a few guesses.. Are the assertion that venus receives less solar energy than earth a true one?
P Wilson
I was trying to say that using the Ideal Gas law to explain the temperature of Venus is wrong. Try using it to explain the temperature of any of the gas giants for example.
Or the high pressure gas bottles in the lab where I work. They are at high pressure, yet at room temperature.
In referring to a closed system, I also had in mind but didn’t mention, a pistion and cylinder arrangement where the volume could change in response to either a temperature or pressure change.
But that still does not apply to planetary atmospheres where the gas can expand almost indefinately.
thanks
P Wilson,
Yes the assertion that Venus receives less solar radiation than the earth is true.
Data from wikepedia, but if you want a better source then go for it.
The earth is 1 au from the sun and venus is 0.7, so by “I squared R” the radiation at the top of the atmosphere for Venus is about twice that of the earth’s.
But Earth’s albedo is 0.29 for bond albedo and 0.367 for geometric, while Venus’s is 0.75 for bond and 0.84 for geometric.
Albedo being the amount of light reflected from the top of the atmosphere.
So the amount of light not reflected is 0.71 or 0.633 for the earth and 0.25 or 0.16 for Venus.
So 0.25 times 2 or 0.16 times 2 is less than 1 times 0.71 or 1 times 0.633.
The albedo of Venus is more than twice that of earths so it gets less sunlight than earth.
Na2CO3 + H2O = 2NaOH + CO2
H◦298K = 171.5 kJ
My poor chemistry says: amount of CO2 rules; wherever it comes from. Venus makes me shudder. Some scientists say there is enough CO2 to do that here. Hope THEY get good sleep. But the government censoring the young man’s experiment! That’s outrageous! Whether it proved anything or not to anyone. Such censoring is overkill.
” bob (13:55:21) :
, so why again is Venus so hot?”
Coz there’s no humans to fix the air-con?
gallier2 (14:13:46) :
Nobody noticed the obvious spelling error in the title of the page yet?
“Its” in “Its a gas, Man”? No, didn’t notice.
Now if only we could create thunderstorms inside the bottles…
[ Richhard111 (12:23:04) : No mention that Earth’s atmosphere was once 95% carbon dioxide or how and why it is now only 0.0385%.]
Plant life ‘occured’ and ‘decided’ that CO2 was lunch. Considering the discovery of extremofile lifeforms here on earth, can we totally discount the possibility of, say, some acidohyperhyperthermophile lurking on Venus ?
whether or not the kids theory is good or not, why is it being censored?
Oooo! This is fun. Why bother with consensus when you can gather empirical data?
Each alka-seltzer tablet contains about 1500mg soda bicarb and 1000mg citric acid.
1.5 grams sodium bicarbonate + 1 gram citric acid, added to 200mL water at 21.1dC
Temperature of the water decreased within 1 minute to 19.9dC.
I don’t have any two liter bottles or clay to work with, but I can hypothesize (based on the molecular weight of CO2) that this experiment does, in fact, do a pretty good job of simulating the atmosphere of Venus.
I won’t include all of my math, but each seltzer tablet has the potential to liberate about 0.8g of CO2 (1.6g for two tabs). A liter of air weighs about 1.2g. I doubt that the molding clay is air tight, so I am guessing the CO2 probably replaces most of the air in the bottles. Even if it didn’t, the concentration of CO2 would be greater than 50%. It would be nice if the experiment explained to the poor kids the difference between the amount of CO2 in the bottle and the amount in our atmosphere.
The money invested in green technology is so huge, that global warming not being a man-made disaster will cause G.E., and Al Gore to lose millions while the rest of us will be punished into not being able to heat or cool our homes because we rely on the standard fossil fuels. Remember when Obama said that Americans think they can have their thermostats set on seventy-one whether they live in Arizona or Minnesota? It was two states like that, so I can’t really say if I remember them correctly, but he then went on the say, “The rest of the world disapproves”. Michelle herself said that Americans are going to have to get use to having less, yet neither of these statements rang a bell with his supporters. Now he has shut down a nuclear waste dump that cost utility bill payers billions, so he wants no new nuclear plants either. We will only have expensive solar panels and windmills. And we will suffer. And brainwashing the children is the first step to totalitarianism.
NOAA has now put the page back up.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d17-Controversial-NOAA-climate-change-page-returns–missing-original-text
They removed five inconvenient paragraphs in the discussion portion. But the last modified date is still shows September 1, 2009.
They must have read Orwell. “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”