Dook, Bill Nye has a video where he shows how global warming occurs by placing two containers next to a heating lamp and pumping CO2 into one. He showed that the one with CO2 had a quicker temperature increase.
Except for one thing. He didn't really show anything. First, he was using a heating lamp, which is hardly the same thing. Second, people have tried to duplicate his experiment exactly as he showed and were not able to duplicate the results. Why? Because there is absolutely no way that the temp change would be that rapid and that different. So he lied about his results. Third, Bill Nye is obviously ingorant of how greenhouse gasses work (or lying). Take Hawaii and New Mexico as an example. Hawaii has far more GHGs in the form of water vapor. Because of this, the average temp is higher. BUT, GHGs store energy and they go to an excited state. This means that it takes longer to heat them. This is why New Mexico has hotter highs than Hawaii. Fourth, heating up things like glass containers with light is more about the glass than the air inside. One would think that Bill Nye would know that.
So Bill Nye runs an experiment, lies about the results and thankfully the results were lies. Because if Bill Nye's methodology and results had been sound and he had really obtained those results, he would have shown that CO2 is not a GHG.
This is something to criticize. This is a reason to say someone is lying. This is a reason to ridicule the person and tell them to go back to school.
What you are currently doing, is ridiculous.
This is the same question you asked before except you exchanged parts for molecules The outcome is the same
1. Find a dictionary
2. Ask the nearest adult to look up the word "analogy" and explain to you what it means.
Edit: And what it does NOT mean.
Hint: When the Manhattan Project set out create an atomic bomb, by means of a "chain reaction," they did not experiment with links of iron chain.
True: you don't really need condescension, you just need to go back, with or without "banky," to the little school house, and learn what the other Kindergarteners learned, concerning not telling lies about things just because they are too difficult (for someone of your intelligence) to understand. It is by no means a sin to be mentally slow. Lying is a different matter.
Edit2: Here, you go Zippy. Takes 20 seconds to consult the Leftist-Greenie-Alarmist, Pro-Round-Earth, Pro-Science, Pro-Literacy, Pro-Grade-School-Education, Reptilian Godzilla Council-of-Foreign-Rome-Seeing-Eye Conspiracy website of the Nazi, Stalinist 10￠-per-gallon-gasoline-tax will turn America-into-Auschwitz site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
Conservatives are absolutely insane
000000.000000000001% of nothing no affect
To bring you up to par. All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere (nature's chemical's) separate into nothingness, so the sun's ray's can warm earth as it rotates so all plants can grow and flourish to grow food and oxygen so all species can survive. Also Global warming ended 11/28/2012 confirmed by our Satelite reports and Haley's Comet collided with the incoming object 13 years from earth known as THE BIG BANG according to the picture's of The Hubble telescope. I saw 10 large objects drifting in different directions away from our Universe.
Build a greenhouse at least a mile tall and covering a few square miles, and you can start to get to the kind of scale where the greenhouse effect (which does not, despite the name, work quite like an actual greenhouse) would actually be working.
I see the Raisin still thinks greenhouse gasses act by storing energy. Not so. They act by randomizing the direction of the radiation.
A greenhouse, being only a couple of mean-free-pathlengths tall, coupled with major conductive and convective effects, is not of a proper scale to show greenhouse gas effects.
Think of two identical greenhouses, one with slightly thicker glass than the other. which one gets warmest?
The thicker glass stops some heat going in and also some going out but I would not expect to see much difference in the actual temperatures.
None.
However, since it's not the CO2 that causes a greenhouse to be warm,
it's not a valid comparison to the real world.
In other words, you're going to draw a conclusion that you like from a premise that's a lie.
Isn't this pretty much what the IP CC was suppose to find out? Using all of the same gases as the atmosphere has in it, what is the measurable difference in temperature after this is added? One would think that climate science would be much more persuasive if a simple scientific experiment like this was on display for all to see if the GHG Theory is indeed holding true to form. Is the measurable difference 0.7C or even close to that?
The world is definitely more complex than a greenhouse. A greenhouse is enclosed and limited in size. The earth has clouds, night and day, arctic and tropics, land and oceans, other GHGs, water which creates clouds that reflect and removes heat and redistributes it (etc), ocean currents that move laterally and vertically, yada yada yada. IPCC would like to pretend they could predict what would happen in a greenhouse but I doubt they could even get that right.
Edit. I have read that they tried a similar experiment but it didn't work. It should work if you can control all the variables so maybe someone will link to one that did work. Even if it did, I would remain skeptical because of the reasons provided above.
