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.
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!