Using only eskys and cling wrap a man has single-handedly disproved the greenhouse effect in an afternoon. Nobel prize on its way.
www.webcitation.org/69NuLN7BK
200 years of science disproved just like that. Those scientists are so stupid.
Shock horror, somebody actually challenging the so called scientific "facts" in regards to carbon pollution and its resulting so called impact on climate, with a dumb downed experiment [}:)]
Should be hung drawn and quartered
On a plane to Auckland 3 weeks ago I had the pleasure of sitting beside a Native American university professor.
She told me that when you look at the languages spoken by Native Americans their are some very interesting patterns of a far Northern dialect that is spoken from the North of Canada via the interior, to Mexico and then back up the West Coast. This dialect follows a path.
The path was created by Native Americans migrating during 2 seperate Ice Ages in the last 20,000 years. Yes, Climate change is real. It always has been.
I don't know why people think that just because we can buy stuff and drive remote control helicopters or look at porn on handheld devices we are so clever that we can control the planet........ We can't now despite our brilliance.
I am not a sceptic, I'm a true believer in Climate change.....
"Climate Change" is one thing, "Greenhouse Effect" is another. Climate change is clearly real. Whether greenhouse effect is real or human created I don't really worry about, because I think that releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is probably ill-advised, at least until we can be sure about its effect.
And, based on some bloke's report on cling wrap and some eskys, I'm still not 100% sure...
it is a fairly basic experiment and I would like to see a larger experiment conducted in the same way to test the "thermal intertia" of the carbon dioxide.
The hypothesis would be that because we go through periodic heating (night and day) that the box with carbon dioxide may hold its heat better than the 02 so when it gets heated again on the second day, it is already starting from a more elevated temperature.
it is an interesting experiment but would require a significantly larger time scale and sample size since we are talking in the scale of an entire planet so minute differences would have a profound effect.
if you think about the change in temperature in an esky versus the gradual change in temperature of a planet, then small errors, inefficiencies and even the measuring device could not pickup these details.
But a great first start in the backyard!
plus, I live in Adelaide so could use a bit of warming up right now!
Answer me this, because my head hurts.
A) Do people really think that during 200 years of scientific research the above experiment was never considered? Really? How.can.people.think.this?
B) Why does no-one know how it works when it a very, very popular topic?
The experiment above is not how the greenhouse effect works at all. Not at all. It's not about whether CO2 absorbs or contains heat. The hint about how it actually works is in its ****ing name!; it works like a greenhouse. There's a layer way up there, in the cold upper atmosphere that reflects the heat back. If anything it was the glad wrap in the experiment was creating a greenhouse effect, but it was on both eskys.
Greenhouse effect: It's what keeps the earth warm. It does really truly exist. It works the same way a greenhouse does. You accept greenhouses exist, right?
You'd have to be careful drawing conclusions from this experiment. Co2 in the atmosphere is 385 ppm. What's 1,0000,000/385 times the depth of an esky? About 1 kilometer. So radiation has to pass through an Esky's worth of C02 in just the first kilometer of atmosphere. There's a lot more Co2 in the atmosphere than that.
I like seeing people doing science in the back yard, but in this case I suspect Dad had a hypothesis he wanted to prove and selected an experiment to back his theory rather than one to test it.
My main 2 issues
1. they painted the inside of the esky with heat absorbing black paint, the results might have been different had the inner surfaces been more neutral, or even reflective (like say an ocean)
2. they measured the ability of the 2 systems to gain heat, not whether the high carbon dioxide esky would RETAIN heat once the sun set
And obviously an esky is a bit different to an entire planet, and taking the results of a SINGLE test performed at 1 temperature over a couple of hours and then extrapolating the results is poor scientific method at best.
Anyone feel like replicating this over a few different test conditions. I can't be assed, but I might if I had kids.
