With an increased level of Co2 In the atmosphere, the temperature will drop, its dead easy to Prove. !

With an increased level of Co2 In the atmosphere, the temperature will drop, its dead easy to Prove. !

When people challange Al's "famous" test, Gore is dead wrong.

Here it goes, by Professor...

RedShift | July 14, 2017

Do us a favor, put a bag over your head (with a doctor nearby on standby) and tell us about what you find.

SCCRENDO | July 14, 2017

Hey upper welcome back. Sprouting your nonsense again are you? Yes. Prove it with peer reviewed science. Please no 45 minute u-tube videos by some Scandinavian scientist with Alzheimer's who's been at the moonshine.

Remnant | July 15, 2017

@SCCRENDO (July 14, 2017)

<< Sprouting your nonsense again are you? >>

That verb is "spouting", rather than "sprouting."

Take a course in "English as a second language."

<< Prove it with peer reviewed science. >>

Well, it depends on who your peers are.

As your peers are the ignorant, monomaniacal, AGW worshipers, there would be nothing to gain by consulting them.

RedShift | July 15, 2017

Take a course in common sense.

SCCRENDO | July 15, 2017

@Remnant. I would say that like a plant the nonsense is "sprouting" from the scientifically challenged folk like yourself.

SO | July 15, 2017

There is more coming out of a tailpipe than CO2. Can't we all just agree to reduce pollution? That should be a no brainer.

RedShift | July 15, 2017


Should be a no brainer. Should be.

SCCRENDO | July 15, 2017

How do you get Trump to change a lightbulb? You don't. He will lie that he changed it and all the Republicans will sit in the dark and agree.

rxlawdude | July 16, 2017

Lol! But the sad part is, it's not far from the truth.

MitchP85D | July 16, 2017

Hey Captain Planet. Sprout or spout. It sounds the same, so that is close enough for me.

Hey 0, I'm willing to listen. I know the global warming worshippers here would rather cover their ears and go, "Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala!"

carlk | July 16, 2017

Why do we want earth's temperature to drop even if it's true? Either way CO2 is a bad thing if it disturbes natural's progression.

SCCRENDO | July 16, 2017

Carlk +1. Mitch why not have a stab at it and explain how rising CO2 levels drop the temps. We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher the CO2 the more the greenhouse layer the hotter the temps. Do you have any specs on greenhouses that naturally drop temperatures? Look like OP has been running out of the sauna too quickly in subzero temps.

MitchP85D | July 17, 2017


Challenge to any of you global warming worshippers treading on this thread. Refute this experiment! Now tell me, who do you think is more honest and thorough with the details of this glass jar CO2 experiment? Al Gore and Bill Nye? Or, Anthony Watts! Anybody out there who has any sort of scientific brain will come to the conclusion that the WUWT folks have falsified Al Gore and Bill Nye. Gore and Nye are frauds!

That weird "0" dude is right!

RedShift | July 17, 2017

Hello doofuses!

Check this out then:

I trust 'Mythbusters' over your anti-common sense crusader website 'wattsupwiththat' any day.

Tropopause | July 17, 2017


I tried your experiment with putting a bag over my head and breathing. Definitely got hotter! ;)

Felt very cool when the doctor took it off.

MitchP85D | July 17, 2017

I watched the video Better Red Than Dead. The Mythbusters version is more realistic than the Gore/Nye version because they used visible light instead of infrared lamps. But the Mythbusters video did not say what the concentration levels of the CH4 box and the CO2 boxes were. The video said the gases can be increased at "minutely accurate increments." But that was it. The CH4 and CO2 boxes could have been mostly CH4 and CO2 for all we know. They didn't specify the value. If that 1 deg C difference between the air box and the CH4/CO2 boxes is all they could come up with when the concentration levels were unrealistically high, I don't find that compelling.

The WUWT experiment was an honest attempt to duplicate the Gore/Nye experiment with all of the materials that were used. And the WUWT videos were by far more thorough and scientific in nature than either the Gore/Nye video or the Mythbusters video. At least with the Mythbusters video, there is no deceit involved. Concerning the Gore/Nye experiment video, there most certainly was! And WUWT proved it!

RedShift | July 17, 2017


WUWT proved that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? When was that? :-)

Also, if WUWT were right and most scientific opinion were wrong, why did the ice melt? :-)

One wonders. Not you, but others. :-)

MitchP85D | July 17, 2017

NO better Red Than Dead! That is not what WUWT was proving. What they proved was that air with higher CO2 concentrations is less of a CONDUCTER of heat than normal air. You didn't look at the WUWT video. The experiment was basically a test of what conducts heat more from those heat lamps. The heat lamps warm the jars, then the jars warm the air samples in the jars. It was NOT a realistic test of greenhouse gases to begin with. WUWT pointed that out right from the beginning. Gore/Nye should have used visible light like they did in the Mythbusters video. But the main thing WUWT did prove was that Gore/Nye are frauds!

RedShift | July 17, 2017


Wait a minute. What is the point of contention here? That CO2, is a greenhouse gas. i.e, it can cause a similar effect to a greenhouse if sufficient amounts exist in the atmosphere. If the point of contention is that Gore and Nye are frauds, then that is a separate topic.

RedShift | July 17, 2017


"Definitely got hotter"

Naah, it must be due to someone else in the room. Was it your wife? Girlfriend? Boyfriend? :-)

I hear that something called WUWT proved you can actually freeze when CO2 gets to be too much n the air around you.

SCCRENDO | July 17, 2017

@Mitch. For someone who is clueless about science you are suddenly a critic????? WTF!!!!. Explain to me how the CO2 and methane levels matter? This is not meant to be a real world experiment. However whatever the CO2 level and methane level the glass were ice in the CO2 and methane jars melted quicker. So I guess our Scandinavian denier friend was wrong about CO2 dropping temps when we look at Redshifts show and tell. Give me a few minutes and I will google some well controlled experiments.

SCCRENDO | July 17, 2017

Hey Mitch. This may be a little complicated for a weatherman whose science involves cartoons. This looks like a good historical article of the evolution of science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This article looks well referenced. Far better than cartoon videos.

MitchP85D | July 18, 2017

Hey Captain Planet, was I a bit to harsh to refer to our "Scandinavian friend" that weird 0 dude? Anyway, back on topic. The reason why CH4 and CO2 concentration levels matter is because you cannot directly transfer the results from the experiment to our current atmosphere. In other words, if you have a box full of CH4 and CO2, that 1 deg C difference in temperature observed cannot be applied to our atmosphere because our atmosphere has CO2 measured in parts per million, and CH4 in parts per billion! In the Mythbusters experiment, they did not mention the concentration levels. That makes all the difference in the world if you want to apply the results of that experiment to our atmosphere.

In the WUWT video. They actually had a CO2 meter that showed how much CO2 was in the jar. The meter they had would max out at 10,000 ppmv. After they put the CO2 into the jar, they put the meter in there and you can see that it pegged 10,000 ppmv. The Mythbusters video did nothing like that.

SCCRENDO | July 18, 2017

MItch. You are talking about a short experiment (I didn't look at the time but it was only a few mins) and you are trying to extrapolate that to decades of carbon buildup. I realize one thing about your way of thinking. You don't understand science and have no concept of scale. For example it does seem amazing that our universe, our planet and intelligent life could spontaneously evolve. However 13 billion years is a real long time. If you look at the life of the universe as a 24 hour clock humans have only been around since 11:58:43 pm (i min and 17 secs). And we can see how much humans have evolved over that time frame. And the universe has been doing its thing for almost infinite time.

What you and Redshift have posted are lab experiments to show a concept that hardly reflects the real environment. I posted a link to the history of the discovery of CO2 and climate change that is comprehensive, very informative and took a while to go through carefully. However if you understand the science our environment is so finely tuned that a doubling of CO2 even at these so called "lower levels" of CO2 raises the temperature of the planet only a few degrees yet it will have devastating consequences to our planet.

Mitch. Your Scandinavian buddy zero or upper or whatever he calls himself, like you, has no concept. He just rehashes cartoon videos from the Scandinavian denier sites that indeed show no science.

MitchP85D | July 18, 2017

So Captain Planet, are you trying to tell me that Scandinavians don't know a damn thing about climate?

MitchP85D | July 18, 2017

Hey Captain Planet, did you read about Dr. Roger Revelle in the CO2 history article you posted?

SCCRENDO | July 18, 2017

MItch. Fact check from his daughter

Roger's daughter, Carolyn Revelle, wrote:

Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" Roger Revelle—our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect—remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense—measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate. [...] Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage "look before you leap," but he never said "sit on your hands."[13]"

MitchP85D | July 19, 2017

Well, his daughter is a lefty with that point of view. If Revelle was as "devout" as you claim he was, then why would he associate himself with Dr. Fred Singer? You didn't think that one through, did you Captain Planet!

FREE ENERGY | July 19, 2017

Mitch, u may need to translate this into English, but some part of this u may grasp...

RedShift | July 19, 2017

Mr Phi,

Did you grasp my retort? Mitch didn't.

Tropopause | July 19, 2017

How does Elon plan on making Mars' atmosphere suitable for human colonization? I thought Elon said we need to increase CO2 in order to increase the atmospheric temperature?

RedShift | July 19, 2017

He obviously hasn't seen this awesome WUWT experiment. Or called the two geniuses - Mitch and the enigmatic Phi.

SCCRENDO | July 19, 2017

Mitch. You make up your own interpretations. However I believe that his daughter would be in a better position to speak for him than you. In addition even if he did take a moderate stance he never questioned climate change like all you deniers. He just questioned whether the rate of remediation was worth the cost in 1990. 27 years have passed since he died and I would think if he were alive today he certainly would say it was worth it.

This is a more extensive opinion from his daughter | July 19, 2017

@Ø: is "druvhuseeffekten" greenhouse effect?

Elon Musk: "the dumbest experiment in history..."

I like the idea of moving to a sustainable energy model.
Cleans up the air. Creates lots of new jobs. Saves money. If it slows down climate change, all the better.

SCCRENDO | July 19, 2017

if Mitch and upper/zero/phi had some basic science understanding we wouldn't even be having these discussions. They throw out random pronouncements from the denier "scientists" that seem to counter any small aspect of climate change science and tout this as proof.

Some facts on CO2. It is a natural gas and not a pollutant and necessary for life. While it is a waste product of human metabolism it is vital for plant photosynthesis. The problem with CO2 is not that it is there or the level but the rate of rise. Normally CO2 is given off by animals and humans and taken up by plants for photosynthesis and levels are kept in balance. If levels start to rise the earth has buffering systems like the oceans that can store excess CO2. As levels rise further the extra CO2 begins to lower the pH of the oceans which then begins to disturb ocean ecology. When all buffering systems are overwhelmed the CO2 settles in the atmosphere where it forms a layer called the greenhouse layer where it functions as a greenhouse or blanket. Heat normally comes in from the sun and the excess leaves. However the greenhouse layer starts to trap the heal and global temps rise. There is enough science to show this.

Now our Scandinavian genius zero/upper/phi claims that CO2 lowers temperatures. As evidence he supplies a 45 minute video in Swedish. I guess my Swedish is not that good so I respectfully request you supply links to scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that show this. The title of the thread states "Dead easy to prove". Well go ahead in a scientific peer reviewed manner. 97% of the world's scientists are waiting. | July 19, 2017

No wonder I didn't understand it. I thought it was in Norwegian.

SCCRENDO | July 19, 2017

@george. I could stand corrected. I don't speak any Scandinavian languages so I have no idea. How about you | July 20, 2017

I used to know a little Finnish but that barely qualifies as Scandinavian.
I know how to ask people if they can speak Swedish in Swedish but, if they answer in the affirmative, I'm in trouble.

People in
Lapland may be looking forward to global warming.😉

SCCRENDO | July 20, 2017

Even though the Norwegians would be more comfortable in a warmer environment I think they understand the consequences of global warming and climate change far better then us. But they also have an oil industry. Interesting article. I wonder if zero/upper/phi could be connected to the oil industry

MitchP85D | July 20, 2017

Hey 0, I am 15 minutes into watching the video you just posted. I know most Scandinavian people speak English - better than most Americans! Does this professor have an English version of his lecture recorded? I can grasp some of the things he is talking about because some of his displays are in English, and I can read that while he is speaking. The main thing I can grasp is that he is showing how false the Gore/Nye experiment is. Gore and Nye are frauds, and they purposely faked the temperature data in their "experiment" to push their global warming religion onto everybody.

The professor was also mentioning an experiment as far back as 1909 (R Wood). He had two black cardboard boxes, one covered by a glass plate, and the other a plate of rock salt. They were both put out into the sun. And the resulting temperatures were only 1 deg apart, the rock salt being a bit higher. I guess the point of that experiment was to show that "trapped" radiation plays a smaller role than what is typically believed.

So far, pretty interesting video 0. I understand you Scandinavians also have a long history of keeping mariners logs that date back hundreds of years, and that you kept track of Atlantic sea ice extent. And what is happening now is nothing unusual compared to the past four hundred years.

MitchP85D | July 20, 2017

OK, just finished watching the video 0. If he has the same lecture to an English audience, I would like to see it. But I looked at his displays. What I gather from the professor is that the greenhouse affect from CO2 diminishes with increasing concentration of CO2. And that there is way too much alarm over the rising CO2 in our atmosphere. Is that correct 0?

Tropopause | July 20, 2017

I guess Elon was wrong- increasing CO2 on Mars will make the planet colder. Somebody please warn Elon! He has no clue!

SCCRENDO | July 20, 2017

Mitch. Did you manage to pick out those peer reviewed articles supporting his interesting thoughts or were they written in ancient Viking or Nordic., languages only remembered by a 113 year old Scandinavian woman in a tiny village whose memory is beginning to fail?

MitchP85D | July 20, 2017

I don't dive a hoot about PAL Review Captain Planet!

By the way, just got back from a Hurricane Conference in Downtown Houston today. Saw two good pro/con presentations on AGW. Got to speak to both of them afterwards. The pro AGW guy wants to see the free market develop alternatives, not government!

RedShift | July 20, 2017

Mitch, do you care about Elon Musk? Then please call him about this genius discovery you and phi have made. You will save him a ton of money.

MitchP85D | July 21, 2017

And what discovery is that Better Red Than Dead?

SCCRENDO | July 21, 2017

Elon wants to create an atmosphere by transporting CO2 to Mars. You better let him know how cool he will make it.

MitchP85D | July 21, 2017

It is already brutally cold there Captain Planet! According to Space Academy, the mean planetary temperature is -53C. I have no friggin' idea how he will transport enough CO2 there to have any affect on the temperature of Mars! The greenhouse effect on earth is only very slight as is. When you compare the computed planetary temperature of earth (without an atmosphere), 279K (+6C), with the actual, 288K (+15C), there isn't a whole lot of difference there. How can one think they can make a difference on Mars?

MitchP85D | July 21, 2017

Correction, previous post - I don't give a hoot...

SO | July 21, 2017

Free market kicks in when there is a profit to be made or absolutely having no choice but to do something about it. Both of those instances are often reactionary and could even be considered too late depending on the situation.

Mitch likes to keep saying "better red than dead" for some strange reason. As if a mistake in the past means that scientists/doctors can never be trusted again even when there is much more data available today. I guess if you ever have a cancer scare, you can just ignore future diagnosis because they will always be wrong.

Well.... I like the phrase "better safe than sorry". Last I checked, we only have one planet that we can live on. So we should take care of it. For those religious folks out there (I'm not one of them), if you think god will provide, don't you think it would honor god to take care of his home that we are using?