Coolant Carbon Dioxide Our Planet’s Future for Mass Refrigeration

In the theoretical world of climatologists carbon dioxide is a warming gas with a supposed logarithmic effect. But in the real world of industrial cooling manufacturers are increasingly preferring to use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant.

Surely if carbon dioxide works as a coolant in industry don’t the same principles apply on our open atmosphere? It sure does according to the 2011 ground-breaking experiments of Professor Nasif Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico. [1.]

But before we dismantle the climatism myth that carbon dioxide has a logarithmic heating impact let’s consider the proven cooling properties of this amazing trace gas. A leading industry expert, Dick Topping Director of Appliance Research (TIAX, LLC) writes: “The use of CO2 as a refrigerant dates back more than a century, but it fell out of favor in the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry with the development of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1930s. Shortly thereafter, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) such as HCFC-22 were developed, and HCFC-22 eventually became the primary refrigerant for stationary air-conditioning systems. However, when concerns about the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer emerged in the 1970s, national and international agreements were enacted to phase out CFCs and HCFCs.” [2.]

Industry Experts: CO2 is ‘Green Refrigerant’

The irony in Topping’s next section is sublime. The industry expert goes on to tell his readers that the phasing out of CFC’s is “leading many researchers and manufacturers to reconsider “natural” refrigerants such as CO2, hydrocarbons, and ammonia, because these substances have negligible direct global-warming impact and ozone-depletion potential.

Topping then advises that because CO2 is “not subject to venting restrictions” we should “expect to see systems that accommodate the unique characteristics of CO2 as a ‘green’ refrigerant in the years ahead.” So is CO2 a warming or a cooling gas? Other industry experts agree with Topping. Linde, a world leader in the field, also calls CO2 a “High quality natural refrigerant.” [3.]

While in Japan, Sanyo developed that country’s first commercially-viable CO2 refrigerant in 2009 which they say will “greatly contribute to the prevention of global warming.” Sanyo declare that if freezers and refrigerators were switched to a “CO2 refrigeration system, the CO2 emission reduction effect would be about 50 percent.” [4.]

Even carbon-hating Wikipedia concedes that CO2 is “a natural refrigerant.” While in the nuclear industry the advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) and the Magnox reactor, both use carbon dioxide as the coolant. But hold on a cotton-picking minute. It turns out ordinary plain Jane air is also a natural coolant – what ever happened to the UN’s notion that “our atmosphere keeps our planet warmer than it would otherwise be”? [5.]

Wikipedia can’t seem to figure out the glaring contradiction in it’s message when, on the one hand, it declares, The simplest, and most popular refrigerant is water.” Then almost in the next breath states “the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor in the air.”

So now let’s examine the myth of logarithmic heating by CO2. Many climatologists, working on a theoretical basis with computer models, have endlessly told us that CO2 has a logarithmic heating effect based on observations of light-absorbing media. But does it? Well, no. Firstly, proponents of this idea miss the fact that the Earth is observed to emit all of the radiant energy it receives.

Climate researcher, Alan Siddons has astutely pointed out the problem here. “As you see, the more absorbing slabs you add the closer you approach extinction, i.e., no light getting through at all.”

The effect of several slabs together, then, will look like this:

Logarithmic Progression Defies Observed Reality

Siddons suggests climate scientists look again at their assumptions about logarithmic progression particularly when they use such graphs to declare, “See? IR-absorbing gases cause surface heating in just the same way. The first few parts per million have the strongest thermal impact, while higher concentrations produce an ever-diminishing effect.”

Crucially, proponents of the logarithmic progression idea miss the fact that the Earth is observed to emit all of the radiant energy it receives. As Siddons points out, “there’s no evidence of an extinction process in the first place!“

Furthermore, the logarithmic heating model relies on a false comparison, for one must assume that when a medium absorbs visible light HEATING results, hence the emission of infrared. In other words, a wavelength conversion is involved, such that what goes missing in the visible portion will be found in the infrared. But when a medium specifically absorbs infrared and EMITS infrared, where is the conversion, how is the wavelength of interest being extinguished?

Indeed, if IR-absorbing gases actually DID extinguish infrared, this could only mean that they don’t EMIT infrared, in which case they’d be HEAT SINKS for the Earth’s radiation rather than the heat sources they’re presumed to be. A greenhouse gas would thus mimic a “black hole”: infrared light would fall into it and no infrared light would escape.

In conclusion Siddons and his research colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) are asking climate scientists to take on board the demonstrable physical evidence provided by the applied science of industry and the experimental evidence of Professor Nahle. Siddons sums it up aptly, “if greenhouse gases absorb but do not emit, then they can’t be regarded as radiative heating agents for anything. On the other hand, if greenhouse gases do emit what they absorb, then they can’t be said to “trap” radiation.”

When such cold, hard facts are addressed it seems ridiculous to try to fashion a pattern of back-radiated surface heating of our planet from the rules of light absorption (the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’). This is especially so since the very mechanism for such heating doesn’t exist and the above real world facts show CO2 is proven to operate only as a coolant.

————————-

[1.] Nahle, N. S., Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands (2011), Scientific Research Division, Biology Cabinet Mexico.

[2.] Topping R., Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant Makes a Comeback (2004) Appliancemagazine.com (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

[3.] R744 Refrigerant Grade CO2, www.linde-gas.com (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

[4.] Sanyo Develops Japan’s First Co2 Refrigerant Direct Expansion Type Refrigeration System, www.gea-consulting.com (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

[5.] The Causes of Climate Change, United Nations, www.un.org (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

About these ads

40 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

40 responses to “Coolant Carbon Dioxide Our Planet’s Future for Mass Refrigeration

  1. Pingback: Coolant Carbon Dioxide Our Planet’s Future for Mass Refrigeration « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. If you haven’t already noticed, logical contradictions don’t bother the warmest extremists. The reason is, their brand of logic is not dependent upon reality but only upon fantasy, wishes, assertions, and something they call consensus (aka faith).

    It is as if enough people, who mutually certify they are each authorities and say they believe in something, that something is true no matter what reality says about it. Reality is simply to obey their belief. If it doesn’t, then all you have to do is adjust the data so it agrees with the belief and repress any deniers or contrary evidence by whatever means necessary (aka whatever you can get away with). Meanwhile, reality continues to be exactly what it is in spite of all their efforts.

    Ultimately you must choose. It is faith, fantasy, and death or reason, reality, and life. There is no middle ground that is anything other than a transition between those two states.

  3. “Surely if carbon dioxide works as a coolant in industry don’t the same principles apply on our open atmosphere?”

    Not at all. It’s a preposterous claim. CO2 as a coolant takes advantage of evaporation cooling as liquid CO2 under very high pressure is abruptly flash vaporized by reducing the pressure with an expansion valve. It has not a thing to do with how CO2 in the atmosphere works or how the greenhouse effect works.

    “Well, no. Firstly, proponents of this idea miss the fact that the Earth is observed to emit all of the radiant energy it receives.”

    Nobody “misses” this fact. When the Earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium, the same amount of w/m^2 are emitted into space as come in at the top of the atmosphere (about 240 watts/m^2). What we observe, however, is that the surface emits considerable more energy than is sent into space, about 396 w/m^2. Something in the atmosphere is keeping the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be (288K vs about 255K), and keeping it from radiating away more than it receives. What could that be? That’s right – greenhouse gases.

    “if greenhouse gases absorb but do not emit, then they can’t be regarded as radiative heating agents for anything. On the other hand, if greenhouse gases do emit what they absorb, then they can’t be said to “trap” radiation.”

    Total nonsense. When a greenhouse gas absorbs LW radiation, it scatters it in every direction. Some of that scattered radiation makes it back down to the surface, which warms some. Siddons and you are both hopelessly clues as to basic radiative physics.

    • johnosullivan

      Rob,
      Pure sophistry! You state “What we observe, however, is that the surface emits considerable more energy than is sent into space”. Well, Rob, if that were true then the atmosphere would quickly build up an energy store causing runaway warming – utter nonsense. Satellites prove incoming IR = outgoing IR. FYI radiation is the least effective mode of energy transport within a gas – conduction and convection are the key drivers of our refrigerant gaseous atmosphere.

      What you advocate is a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that is full of self-contradiction and woolly thinking. For example, are you trying to say your interpretation of this GHE works by a back radiation mechanism adding “extra” heat or are you saying the GHE slows the rate of heat loss to space? Because these are mutually contradictory concepts frequently conflated in the climatists’ version of “radiative physics.” My 50+ colleagues at Principia Scientific International(http://principia-scientific.org/) have identified that there are at least 63 such junk variants of this “theory” taught at leading universities – most mutually contradictory some claiming “top down” heating others claiming “bottom up” none of them able to persuade each other theirs is right because none of them is provable – it’s all assumption. If you want to know how an atmosphere really works don’t ask a climatologist, ask thermodynamics engineers and space scientists.

      • “You state “What we observe, however, is that the surface emits considerable more energy than is sent into space”. Well, Rob, if that were true then the atmosphere would quickly build up an energy store causing runaway warming – utter nonsense. Satellites prove incoming IR = outgoing IR.”

        Learn to read – I said the *surface* radiates 396 watts/m^2 (that’s an observation and is based on it’s temperature). That’s a fact. I didn’t say that the top of the atmosphere does; that radiates at about 240 watts/m^2 to space (though it’s a little less than what comes in since the Earth is in energy imbalance is gaining energy). And you are wrong anyway – if the Earth were radiating to space 396 watts/m^2, it would rapidly *cool*, not *warm*, since it would be losing a lot more to space than it is taking in. The reason the Earth’s surface can be the 288K instead of the 255K it should otherwise be it is because GHG’s slow the loss of energy to space. The top of the atmosphere where more than half of the LW radiation escapes to space *is* 255K. GHG’s have raised the effective “surface” from the physical surface to many miles up.

        “FYI radiation is the least effective mode of energy transport within a gas – conduction and convection are the key drivers of our refrigerant gaseous atmosphere.”

        Radiation is the only way for energy to enter or leave the Earth. Since you don;t understand radiative physics at even a basic level, you are clueless about how the atmosphere works.

        “For example, are you trying to say your interpretation of this GHE works by a back radiation mechanism adding “extra” heat or are you saying the GHE slows the rate of heat loss to space?”

        It slows the heat loss to space because some radiation (which was heading toward space until it was absorbed and scattered by GHG’s) gets sent back to the surface, warming it.

        I see you have said nothing about the other thing I mentioned – your idiotic misunderstanding of what CO2 cooling systems do.

        “If you want to know how an atmosphere really works don’t ask a climatologist, ask thermodynamics engineers and space scientists.”

        Not if they don;t understand basic physics.

  4. Edmonton Al

    This the best explanation yet.
    I have constantly wondered about the Log relationship and could never seem to get any comments. I never knew what part of the curve we are,supposedly, on at present. From the graphs I looked at, the CO2 in the atmosphere was near the saturation point and doubling and quadrupling the CO2 levels made very little difference.
    I like this science of the atmosphere, and wish that climatologists would trash the GHE totally.
    There are still many lukewarmists, though, that believe the UN IPCC hypothesis, but do not think there is any danger[yet].

  5. johnosullivan

    Rob,
    Your numbers are bogus because they aim to create energy from nothing fudging together two averages that can be shown to be incompatible – vectors and scalars. Read more on this lunacy here: http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect

    In essence, Dr. Latour showed the error in the GHE equations occurred around 1981 when James Hansen stated the average thermal T (temperature) at Earth’s surface is 15°C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18°C (ok). From that he declared the difference 15° – (-18°) = 33°C (arithmetic ok) to be the famous greenhouse gas effect.
    But this is not ‘ok’ because Hansen’s math is seriously awry because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers.

    This is because Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It’s what thermometers measure and it decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc). But radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law and measured by pyrometers and spectrometers.
    Much of GHE theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter. Right there Hansen and other GHE believers have been debunked by a thermodynamics expert and Apollo Mission space engineer.

    You also assert that the GHE “slows the heat loss to space because some radiation (which was heading toward space until it was absorbed and scattered by GHG’s) gets sent back to the surface, warming it,” But your hand waving here is refuted by strict application of astrophysical formulae as performed by Professor Nasif Nahle. Such formulae prove the delay, to which you seem incapable of providing a value, is shown to be inconsequentially small – a mere 3-5 milliseconds. Read more here: http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf

    My colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) have also found that the heat in our atmosphere is transferred from IR-absorbing gases in the lower troposphere by convection to the upper troposphere along with the latent heat in water vapor. There it is converted from thermal back to vibrational, then emitted to space preferentially as IR.

    That leaves us with only one meaningful mechanism that can “delay” energy emission from our planet – phase changes in water – the liquid H2O covering 70 percent of Earth’s surface. I’m sure you would agree, this is not a mechanism that comports with the (IR-obsessed) greenhouse gas hypothesis.

    Thus by such strict application of standard science the only “idiot” here is shown to be you.

  6. “Your numbers are bogus because they aim to create energy from nothing fudging together two averages that can be shown to be incompatible – vectors and scalars”

    They are direct observations. The Earth’s surface is a certain temperature. This means it *has* to radiate a certain amount of LW radiation. This equates to about 396 watts/m^2. The energy isn’t coming from “nothing” – it originally comes from the Sun. The amount radiated to space is a lot less – about 240 watts/m^2, but the place this energy is finally radiated to space is many miles up in the atmosphere, where it is far colder than the Earth’s surface. That’s also observation. You said above that if the Earth’s surface were radiation 396 watts/m^2 it would burn up, yet you got that ass-backwards – it would freeze over until it reached about 255K. Since the Earth as a system radiates away about the same as comes in, there is a rough equilibrium. That doesn’t in *any way* mean the surface has to radiate the same amount as comes in – it clearly and unambiguously does not.

    When the facts go against your claim, maybe you should consider you don’t know what you’re talking about. Well, not you, because you’re hopeless, but maybe one or two of the readers here.

    “But your hand waving here…”

    I made no hand-waving. The hand-waving is all yours.

    “is refuted by strict application of astrophysical formulae as performed by Professor Nasif Nahle”

    He did no such thing. He completely conflated the atmospheric GHE with how a real greenhouse works. He thinks atmospheric physicists think the atmospheric GHE works exactly like a glass greenhouse. It doesn’t, and isn’t claimed to do so. He’s out of his league. He should stick to biology and leave physics to the physicists.

    “Such formulae prove the delay, to which you seem incapable of providing a value, is shown to be inconsequentially small – a mere 3-5 milliseconds.”

    BS. It’s a fact that LW radiation gets absorbed and scattered by GHG’s, and a significant amount finds its way to the surface.

    I note yet again, you have ignored my demolition of your CO2 coolant system claim. Why is that, John? :)

    • johnosullivan

      Rob,
      Go back and check. I said your numbers are bogus because you claimed “Something in the atmosphere is keeping the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be (288K vs about 255K).”

      I.e. 288K minus 255K = Hansen’s 33 degrees which is precisely what is debunked by Dr. Latour in my previous reply. Latour proves Hansen made a fatal calculating error because he mixed a scalar number with a vector. The claim that our planet is “33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be” is demonstrably and categorically refuted as I showed above. Can’t you see that or are you being intentionally obtuse?

      Also, Conservation of Energy demands that incoming IR must equal outgoing IR because reason tells us our climate is incredibly stable having risen from 288K to 288.6 K in the last 100 years. That’s as near equilibrium as it gets and all achieved without Hansen’s mythical “33 degrees.” Thus it is you who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      You say my colleague “completely conflated the atmospheric GHE with how a real greenhouse works” – more handwaving plus ad hom thrown it. FYI here are 63 bogus authority statements from NASA and leading universities PRECISELY claiming that Earth’s atmosphere is JUST LIKE a greenhouse.

      http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/latest-news/53-bogus-authority-statements-that-earths-atmosphere-like-a-greenhouse.html

      Moreover, as it is demonstrated you are not even aware of what the claims of these climatologists are and you merely parrot their junk science I challenge you to refute Nahle’s numbers point by point. But I know you won’t be able to do that because you can’t. All you appear capable of offering is vague statements such as “LW radiation gets absorbed and scattered by GHG’s, and a significant amount finds its way to the surface. “ More guff- show us the actual numbers! You can’t because you haven’t got any.

      Also, I haven’t ignored your supposed “demolition” of CO2 as a coolant. It is self-evident you don’t understand why CO2, rather than any other gas, is used by industry in the refrigeration process. It is because refrigeration manufacturers have known for decades CO2 is the best cooling gas for the purpose. But if you want more proof of the efficacy of CO2 as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere then that is shown in Professor Nahle’s paper here:
      http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf

      Nahle shows the results of experiments on the fluctuation of temperature of the air caused by CO2 at different mass fractions. Nahle’s experiments proved that “if the temp of the air is 35 degrees C by doubling the mass fraction of CO2 the temp of the air DECREASES to 31 degrees C.”

      I know you don’t like to talk actual numbers and I know you cannot show experimental evidence proving the opposite of Nahle’s work – that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. That is because if climatologists could demonstrate CO2 atmospheric warming they would have done it by now.
      Now let’s see you actually try to refute the numbers in calm rational manner rather than resorting to throwing insults.

      • “Go back and check. I said your numbers are bogus because you claimed “Something in the atmosphere is keeping the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be (288K vs about 255K).” ”

        That’s observation. Deal with it.

        “The claim that our planet is “33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be” is demonstrably and categorically refuted as I showed above.”

        It’s an observation. Your dispute is with reality, not me.

        “Also, Conservation of Energy demands that incoming IR must equal outgoing IR because reason tells us our climate is incredibly stable having risen from 288K to 288.6 K in the last 100 years.”

        And I have said that incoming radiation does equal (more or less – there’s a little more going in now than going out which is why there is warming) outgoing radiation. About 240 watts/m^2 going in, and about 240 watts/m^2 going out. Yet the Earth’s surface undeniably radiates about 396 watts/m^2 – that’s what is observed and it has to because of the temperature it is. What that means is not all of the LW energy radiating up actually escapes into space. Gee, I wonder why that is? lol

        “You say my colleague “completely conflated the atmospheric GHE with how a real greenhouse works” – more handwaving plus ad hom thrown it.”

        You don’t know what hand-waving is, nor do you know what an ad hom is. Saying Nahle conflated the real GHE with what happens in a glass greenhouse is a fact – he really thinks that showing a glass greenhouse doesn’t warm by trapping LW radiation has something to do with how the atmospheric greenhouse works.

        “I haven’t ignored your supposed “demolition” of CO2 as a coolant”

        Sure you have. You’ve not mentioned anything I said about it. For the people in Rio Linda, that means you ignored it.

        “It is self-evident you don’t understand why CO2, rather than any other gas, is used in the refrigeration process.”

        It’s liquid CO2 that is used. And of course, it is not the only thing used. Ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and propane are among others used.

        “It is used because refrigeration manufacturers know known for decades CO2 is the best gas for the purpose.”

        The best were CFC’s. Of course, both cooled things through evaporative cooling. In the case of CO2, liquid CO2 is put under very high pressure (or else it wouldn’t remain liquid) and then moved through an expansion valve where the pressure drops suddenly. This causes the liquid CO2 to flash evaporate, and this phase change causes the cooling that makes the cooling system work. Nothing remotely like it happens in the Earth’s atmosphere, where CO2 is always a gas. You can claim CO2 coolant systems have something to do with at how atmospheric CO2 works until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change reality. It’s not even remotely related.

        “But if you want more proof of the efficacy of CO2 as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere then that is shown in Professor Nahle’s paper here:”

        Yeah, some guy with a 4 year degree in Biology who conflates the GHE with glass greenhouses is going to overthrow 150 years of atmospheric physics. His Nobel awaits him. lol

        “I know you cannot show experimental evidence proving the opposite – that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.”

        The experiments started over 150 years ago with Tyndall and have only been supported since then. Why should I care what some doofus with a serious case of D-K syndrome thinks about physics?

        “That is because if climatologists could demonstrate CO2 atmospheric warming they would have done it by now.”

        They have. It’s not just “climatologists”, either. It’s one of the backbones of atmospheric physics. All the Galileo complex in the world isn’t going to turn your fantasy into science.

        You are deluded.

    • “This equates to about 396 watts/m^2. The energy isn’t coming from “nothing” – it originally comes from the Sun. The amount radiated to space is a lot less – about 240 watts/m^2, …”

      I wonder what happened to the other 156 watts/m^2 that you say does not get radiated to space? is it still trapped and accumulating?

      • johnosullivan

        Sparks, it seems Rob Murphy cannot grasp the obvious contradictions he makes in his junk science statements. He seems to trust the numbers plucked out of thin air by climate crooks like Hansen.

        But the biggest error he makes is he doesn’t yet understand why you cannot mix in any thermo equation (like Hansen’s GHE) a scalar-derived temperature (a point property of matter) with a vector-derived temperature (which is a time-function energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2). It’s like mixing apples with oranges!

        And he calls me the “idiot” lol!

  7. JUST A GENERAL COMMENT!
    Carbon is a very efficient transporter of heat (the rate (Φ) at which heat is transferred, (Q) is the amount of heat transferred.) CO2 cools quicker than water vapor, it’s a basic fact of physics, some forms of carbon such as graphite are more efficient than even aluminum.
    Carbon dioxide can be pored from one container to another at room temperature because it is heavier than our oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere, forests have evolved to take advantage of this principle over millions of years, When carbon dioxide is exposed to a source of radiant energy it absorbs and more importantly transports and emits it at a far greater rate than water vapor does, it’s a well known fact. heat retention, storage or even blocking of heat is not a scientific property of the carbon family, Super conductors come from this family. Recently I read up on a discovery of a cold layer on Venus (which is 96.5% CO2 by volume) and it could possibly have snow flurries of CO2 there, and that planet is closer to the sun than earth is. There is no way the CO2 in earths natural atmosphere is able to trap heat when it is an efficient conductor of heat.
    You can however trap CO2 in a container to control it’s temperature, and it will react more efficiently than water vapor, it will warm and cool at a faster rate.

    • johnosullivan

      Sparks, well said and most insightful! Thanks,

    • cdquarles

      Are you really telling me that I can pour a gas from one container to another as if it were a liquid? Really? Citation please. Seriously! What does that mean for the kinetic theory of gases?

      • cdquarles,

        Try a very simple experiment. Take one bowl, partially filled with water. Place it at the center of a table. Add a medium sized chunk of dry ice (solid CO2) to the water. Watch the resulting CO2 spill out of the bowl and over the table top carrying a fog with it. To verify the fog is mostly CO2, light a match and insert burning match into the fog just above the table. Watch the fire go out.

      • johnosullivan

        cdquarles, Lionell is absolutely correct. Try also the “baking soda and vinegar experiment.” It proves you can “pour” CO2 from container to container, and demonstrate its presence with a candle!

        All that you will need for this experiment is baking soda and vinegar, along with one or more containers such as 2 liter soda bottles with the tops cut off, as well as a candle. The first step of this experiment is to create the carbon dioxide gas in one of your containers. To do this, pour in some baking soda and vinegar to start a reaction. You do not need to fill the container, with bubbles, you only need a small reaction to create the gas. While your reaction is bubbling, light your candle. Now, if you have another container, carefully lift up your reaction container and imagine that you are transferring a liquid from one container to the next. Do not actually pour in the baking soda and vinegar reaction, rather only pour in the invisible carbon dioxide gas as if it were a liquid. If you only have one container, just disregard that step. Now that you have carbon dioxide gas in your container, gently lift it and “pour” the gas onto your candle. It should go out! Amazing! If you’re having trouble “pouring” the gas, try carefully placing the candle inside the reaction container and watch it go out. How does this work? It’s science!

        Carbon dioxide gas is slightly heavier than air. This explains why when you create the gas from the baking soda and vinegar, it stays in the container on its own. This is also why you are able to “pour” the gas from container to container as if it were a liquid. The reason that the candles go out is because they require oxygen to burn. The heavy carbon dioxide gas replaces the oxygen needed by the candle, and therefore the candle cannot burn and goes out. This is a great experiment that helps debunk more of the junk science about the so-called GHE.

      • It a very common school experiment, I’ll do better than a quick Citation.

        Also if you look around Youtube there are many interesting variations of this experiment,

      • Also look up dry Ice. :)

  8. johnosullivan

    Rob, again you state Hansen’s numbers are “an observation”. You are wrong because the “33 degrees” is not an observation it is merely a junk number obtained from a calculation premised on the fatally flawed mixing together of a scalar and a vector. If you persist in claiming otherwise then you are either intentionally obtuse or a poor, misguided idiot. Take your pick.

  9. You guys are barking mad. “Scalar” degrees K versus “vector” degrees K? GHE wrong because CO2 can be used to cool? Conservation of energy means “no evidence of extinction at all?”

    A small hint: the whole point of the GHE mechanism is that radiation is frequency shifted. Solar SW passes readily through the atmosphere, while the IR radiated by objects at Terrestrial temperatures suffers rather more impediment. (Yes, the solar spectrum also includes IR, and some solar IR can be absorbed in the atmosphere, but that’s beside the main point.)

    • “Yes, the solar spectrum also includes IR, and some solar IR can be absorbed in the atmosphere, but that’s beside the main point.”

      I basically said above that CO2 is very efficient at transporting radiant energy it transports and emits it at a far greater rate in some frequencies of the inferred band. what’s you point? (it traps radiant energy? don’t be so daft)
      I built a CO2 laser some years ago and learned a lot from experimenting with different frequencies in relation to how efficient the beam was. It’s great fun you should try it!

  10. Vendicar Decaruan

    John.

    You are a moron.

    Thanks for the comedy.

  11. Vendicar Decaruan

    Sorry John. I made a mistake. Let me rephrase.

    John.

    You are a scientifically illiterate moron.

    Thanks for the comedy.

  12. Edmonton Al

    Would someone please address the fact that a gas expands when heated?
    If the atmosphere is heated by the sun, then he area of the TOA is larger—No?
    How does this fit into the “energy balance” ?

    • johnosullivan

      Al,
      You are correct. There is the diurnal bulge and my colleagues at PSI are currently working on a more detailed study of the flux ‘valve’ at the TOA, which as you say, is never mentioned in any energy budget by GHE-loving government climatologists.

  13. Davem

    Hi John – thanks for posting this and for your many other posts.
    Its funny, but not in the comedy sense, how the warmists come out to play with abrasiveness when their religion is threatened.
    Again – thanks, and that is not enough thanks for what constitutes our only hope of avoiding further oppression from the old boy network and their UN umbrella.

    • johnosullivan

      Hi Dave. Many thanks for your feedback. I agree there’s nothing funny about how the “old boy network” is intent on subjugating the rest of us. All we can do is keep spreading the word far and wide until everyone understands what is being foisted upon us is a junk science dystopia.

  14. Steve Mennie

    John…john….you’re still at it I see…It’s unfortunate that having a ‘debate’ about the bullshit in ‘Slaying The Skydragon’ on Judith Curry’s site has given you and your book (for want of a better expression) a patina (or should that be stain) of faux legitimacy. I must say, your staying power is amazing…who’s paying you anyway?

    • johnosullivan

      Mr Mennie, No one is paying me. You sound like a tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist. If you have nothing of any scientific value to contribute then take your personal insults elsewhere.

      • Steve Mennie

        How would you know if I actually brought something of scientific value to the discussion. You have for some years know proven that you have no real interest in legitimate science and are continuing to spread your half baked notions in the most breathless and purple prose littered with all sorts of ‘truthy’ sounding mumbo jumbo that is more than a disservice to humanity but borders on criminality. God help the poor soul who has the bad luck of having you as a litigation consultant. Or are you actually a full fledged lawyer now?

  15. johnosullivan

    Mr Mennie, I will ignore your science-free rant. As in the past, all you seem capable of is personal insults. Don’t be surprised when further such abusive comments from you are deleted.

  16. rogert

    Truly amazing, if you are having trouble with C02 read some of the articles at SOD
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

    Or the whole series
    http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

    Stacks of detail and SOD only deals with proven science and is quite unbiased with his views.

    Interesting that one of the comments to an article I linked:
    A well stated post. However, most scientific skeptics already agree with the model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect you show, so you are arguing against the small minority that will not be convinced no matter what you show.

    Are you one of the small minority or does real science prevail ?

    • johnosullivan

      rogert,
      ok so you’re playing the “appeal to authority card” and the consensus argument? But by your own reasoning, isn’t SOD merely the blog of science undergraduate, Chris Colose? Are you seriously asking we ignore the considered research of over 50 highly-credentialed scientists most with PhD’s and with long careers to defer to the “authority” of a student? In case you haven’t read up on the scientific method it is always the minority who have to overturn errors in prevailing scientific understanding, never the majority. FYI the evidence presented in this article is the product of decades of industrial knowledge, tried and tested empiricism, not the hand waving garbage of a “consensus” of climatologists who wouldn’t know an empirical fact if it smacked them in the face.

  17. Andyj

    Jeez!
    John, you certainly are infected with some right SOD reading dumbo’s in your blog. However, the premise of C02 having an efficient lapse rate is fascinating and worrying.

    Children often bring up the Mythbusters TV global warming trick of filling a box with C02, inside is an ice statue. They shine a studio light in to see it melt the fastest. All this to “prove” GW when its merely a worse medium than air for insulation.
    No thought that radiation, conduction and convection are all game players.

    Compressing warmed C02 gets readily hotter. Decompressing it gets cooler. A fly in the ointment. The lapse rate and the Solar absorption/transmission of a planetary gas seems to happen at high altitude. High pressure (sinking) air is warm air. Venus’ poles are as hot as the equator on the ground. All driven through the planetary winds. The high atmosphere is warmed and runs to the poles to sink and make its way back to the equator. As it sinks, it heats up. Ironically at 55Km up it is one bar pressure and around 26C. Not hot considering the Solar disc is twice the area as on Earth.

    My take on C02 is it works both ways. however, the Earth has been losing its natural atmosphere of far higher C02 concentrations, pressures and temperature over many thousands of millenia. All the C02 was airborne and plant death buried or converted it into chalk, limestone. coal, oil and gas.

  18. Rosco

    De-compressing any gas that has been compressed causes it to absorb heat from the container thus causing cooling of that vessel – this is the basis of the refrigeration cycle.

    CFCs were chosen for the refrigeration cycle because it is reasonably easy to safely and efficiently liquefy them and they are fire and explosion resistant.

    Hydrocarbons are also relatively easy to liquefy but readily burn.

    Gases that expand from liquid to gas absorb more energy from the cooling fins than gases that are not liquid.

    The Mythbusters BS argument about “trapping” radiation is readily debunked by considering 1 kg ofCO2 increases in temperature by about 1.19 K per kJ energy input whilst air increase less than 1 K for the same energy input.

    The killer to their argument is the fact that air is about 60 % more thermally conductive than CO2 which means that air will cool much faster than CO2.

    As the clowns at Mythbusters did not thermally isolate their “demonstration” and prevent free conduction to, and convection in, the surrounding atmosphere all they did is confirm what were already well established physical properties !

    The result had nothing to do with radiation “trapping” at all !!!!!

    The CO2 eventually returned to ambient temperatures – there was no “trapping” of radiation despite the moron wearing a lab coat.

    For those morons who think thermal conductivity does not include radiation effects – somehow radiation is a separate process independent of other heat transmission means (only applicable in a vacuum) – consider how an experimentally determined property like thermal conductivity could possibly be determined exclusive of radiation – all things above absolute zero radiate continuously – even during thermal conductivity experiments !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s