No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gas laws determine what the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is going to be. The gas laws predicted the temperature of Venus long before we ever got there and they proved correct. And we attempted to predict the temperature with the greenhouse hypothesis, we wouldn't have even been close.

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

No, I have said pretty explicitly that infrared radiation will not warm the air. 1 million hours of development, testing, and observation have demonstrated that. Do you want ever get measurements of infrared radiation warming the air.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

The atmosphere is warmed by and gravity thermal effect. Repeatable experimentation has demonstrated this. Gareff has shown temperature gradient in columns of air. Where are there no such effect, there would be no temperature gradient to measure.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

The question was "Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?"

That is an ill formed question. You can't call out the "temperature" of trace molecules in air. That simply has no meaning unless you are referring to the entire sample of air (on earth?) at some time span over some area or volume. You now seem to interpret it as the temperature in a bottle.

If it is supposed to be a gottcha question it doesn't have any meaning, and your comment to that question also has no meaning to me.

The one thing you guys are missing is that I have never promoted AGW. Yes it was colder 100 years ago and it is warmer now, and yes there is more measured CO2 now than then, but I have absolutely no idea if there is an iron-clad cause and effect when it comes to the extreme complexity of the actual earth climate. I have not read any IPCC reports. I don't get involved in cherry-picking graphs, etc.

I have no emotional connection to AGW, I really don't care what emotional connection you guys have either. But you guys disbelieve fundamental laws of physics to try to frantically disprove AGW. The Environmental forum to me is a game. I'm curious how some people think about the physics involved to justify their cause. Your hero SSDD has a totally botched understanding and makes up stuff and when he can't defend his "ideas" he deflects or resorts to emotional outbursts of insults.

It is a game for me. That's all. When some of you guys are too ignorant to even know what you are typing, I will ignore those posts.

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed, somewhere the molecule must absorb that frequency IR. Period. And whether you have 270 ppm of it or 400 ppm of CO2, the emit is the same frequency of the absorbed. And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter. It’s why there’s absolutely zero experiments. We wouldn’t have tens of threads arguing it.

If gas did just get hotter, we would have some invention using it. Thanks

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed

Huh? Can you try that again, in English?

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed

You got one right, are you feeling okay?

And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter.

Why do you feel that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

 

[jc456]

Not even close. No physicist believes that.

Really? Please cite a reference for the one million hours of testing.

Give me a reference to at least two experimenters that validate each others observations. Anything less than that is not a repeatable result. Where has Gareff published. Google does not find anything. It returned,
No results found for +Gareff gradient.
No results found for +Gareff temperature.

You still haven't answered the question, what happens to the measured 15,700 W/m² energy radiating from the surface of Venus.

If you can't answer that, your whole OP crumbles.

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

The question was "Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?"

That is an ill formed question. You can't call out the "temperature" of trace molecules in air. That simply has no meaning unless you are referring to the entire sample of air (on earth?) at some time span over some area or volume. You now seem to interpret it as the temperature in a bottle.

If it is supposed to be a gottcha question it doesn't have any meaning, and your comment to that question also has no meaning to me.

The one thing you guys are missing is that I have never promoted AGW. Yes it was colder 100 years ago and it is warmer now, and yes there is more measured CO2 now than then, but I have absolutely no idea if there is an iron-clad cause and effect when it comes to the extreme complexity of the actual earth climate. I have not read any IPCC reports. I don't get involved in cherry-picking graphs, etc.

I have no emotional connection to AGW, I really don't care what emotional connection you guys have either. But you guys disbelieve fundamental laws of physics to try to frantically disprove AGW. The Environmental forum to me is a game. I'm curious how some people think about the physics involved to justify their cause. Your hero SSDD has a totally botched understanding and makes up stuff and when he can't defend his "ideas" he deflects or resorts to emotional outbursts of insults.

It is a game for me. That's all. When some of you guys are too ignorant to even know what you are typing, I will ignore those posts.

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed, somewhere the molecule must absorb that frequency IR. Period. And whether you have 270 ppm of it or 400 ppm of CO2, the emit is the same frequency of the absorbed. And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter. It’s why there’s absolutely zero experiments. We wouldn’t have tens of threads arguing it.

If gas did just get hotter, we would have some invention using it. Thanks

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed

Huh? Can you try that again, in English?

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed

You got one right, are you feeling okay?

And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter.

Why do you feel that?

No one posted that observation and why we’ve been arguing the point. So is 400 ppm hotter than 270 if they absorbed the same frequency IR?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which level has more back-radiation?

Define back radiation

The radiation that gas in the atmosphere emits toward the Earth's surface.

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

Which level has more back-radiation?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? Why didn’t you answer?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm?

Do you feel it is?

Why didn’t you answer?

Why don't I answer a question that doesn't give complete information?
Why do you feel that is possible?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

The question was "Have you posted the temperature of CO2 at 270 and 400 ppm yet?"

That is an ill formed question. You can't call out the "temperature" of trace molecules in air. That simply has no meaning unless you are referring to the entire sample of air (on earth?) at some time span over some area or volume. You now seem to interpret it as the temperature in a bottle.

If it is supposed to be a gottcha question it doesn't have any meaning, and your comment to that question also has no meaning to me.

The one thing you guys are missing is that I have never promoted AGW. Yes it was colder 100 years ago and it is warmer now, and yes there is more measured CO2 now than then, but I have absolutely no idea if there is an iron-clad cause and effect when it comes to the extreme complexity of the actual earth climate. I have not read any IPCC reports. I don't get involved in cherry-picking graphs, etc.

I have no emotional connection to AGW, I really don't care what emotional connection you guys have either. But you guys disbelieve fundamental laws of physics to try to frantically disprove AGW. The Environmental forum to me is a game. I'm curious how some people think about the physics involved to justify their cause. Your hero SSDD has a totally botched understanding and makes up stuff and when he can't defend his "ideas" he deflects or resorts to emotional outbursts of insults.

It is a game for me. That's all. When some of you guys are too ignorant to even know what you are typing, I will ignore those posts.

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed, somewhere the molecule must absorb that frequency IR. Period. And whether you have 270 ppm of it or 400 ppm of CO2, the emit is the same frequency of the absorbed. And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter. It’s why there’s absolutely zero experiments. We wouldn’t have tens of threads arguing it.

If gas did just get hotter, we would have some invention using it. Thanks

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed

Huh? Can you try that again, in English?

In order to emit something hotter than what it absorbed

You got one right, are you feeling okay?

And having more of that frequency IR doesn’t get the CO2 any hotter.

Why do you feel that?

No one posted that observation and why we’ve been arguing the point. So is 400 ppm hotter than 270 if they absorbed the same frequency IR?

No one posted that observation

No one posted which observation?

So is 400 ppm hotter than 270 if they absorbed the same frequency IR?

400 ppm, ceteris paribus.

 

[jc456]

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

 

[SSDD]

Because he can`t, but there is no shortage of experiments to "educate" school kids about AGW if you use 40% CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun. Might be interesting to see if it will get any warmer than its surroundings if you try it at night. If a bottle with 40% CO2 would get warmer than the air around it without any additional source then all of mankind has been stupid for not having used this magical heat source.
All of that is just another deflection from the inability ( actually its unwillingness) to show a temperature measurement for 200 and 400 ppm CO2 when all other variables are constant.
It would be less effort to conduct such a measurement than writing piles of papers making claims all of which are totally ambiguous when it comes to deltaT 400vs200ppm but long on words using trends of statistics that can`t be trusted or >30 computer models that don`t agree with each other.
It`s not being done because all those who know something about physics know full well that you won`t be able to show the difference between 200 and 400 ppm CO2 with a thermometer. If you could then we would not need expensive IR spectrophotometers to measure CO2 in air. All it would take is a bottle and a thermometer.

I think what he meant was that it can`t get hotter than its surroundings unless it`s exposed to the sun.

He's not very bright.
I wouldn't bet a lot on your assumption.

My assumption was that this thread "No evidence" is about the lack of evidence that there is a measurable increase of temperature when CO2 is increased from 200 to 400ppm and not about evidence that people who claim there is without the evidence are more intelligent than the people who insist on the evidence.

In part. But mostly to frame a couple of straight forward, explicit, reasonable requests for the sort of evidence that any hypothesis regarding an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere needs in order to be credible; and then see what passes for evidence in the minds of those who believed that they could answer my challenge.

We have seen several hundred responses, numerous claims that the data I asked for exists, and a few attempts to actually post data that would challenge the OP. Obviously, no one came close to challenging the OP, but it is always interesting to see how low those who believe in AGW have set the bar for "evidence" sufficient to convince them.

The "evidence" is on par with that used to support religion. It comes down to little if anything that could be called real evidence and a whole lot of assumption, and faith.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It still can’t get hotter than it’s surrounding so even that experiment fails

The gas in the bottle can't get hotter than its surroundings?

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

 

[jc456]

Define back radiation

The radiation that gas in the atmosphere emits toward the Earth's surface.

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

Which level has more back-radiation?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? Why didn’t you answer?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm?

Do you feel it is?

Why didn’t you answer?

Why don't I answer a question that doesn't give complete information?
Why do you feel that is possible?

It’s simple, Is 400 ppm warmer than 270 ppm

 

[jc456]

Not without some other hotter Source. Tell you what, post an observed finding that got hotter without a hotter source. Still looking for that hot spot in the atmosphere. Planes wouldn’t need ice control for the wings if the troposphere was hot.

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The radiation that gas in the atmosphere emits toward the Earth's surface.

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

Which level has more back-radiation?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? Why didn’t you answer?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm?

Do you feel it is?

Why didn’t you answer?

Why don't I answer a question that doesn't give complete information?
Why do you feel that is possible?

It’s simple, Is 400 ppm warmer than 270 ppm

Didn't take Latin, did you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 instead of 0.04% in a bottle and let it cook in the sun.

Not without some other hotter Source.

Well, the Sun is hotter, so we've got that going for us.

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

 

[SSDD]

His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get.

Here, do try to learn something...maybe if you do, you won't be such a putz...then again....

Lucy Skywalker: Graeff’s Second Law Seminar

 

[jc456]

You never answered if 270 was hotter than 400 ppm. That answer must come first

Which level has more back-radiation?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm? Why didn’t you answer?

Is 270 as hot as 400 ppm?

Do you feel it is?

Why didn’t you answer?

Why don't I answer a question that doesn't give complete information?
Why do you feel that is possible?

It’s simple, Is 400 ppm warmer than 270 ppm

Didn't take Latin, did you?

Nope? Was i supposed to ?

 

[jc456]

Wouldn’t the surrounding be that same temperature then? Thanks to the sun?

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would "the surrounding" be the same temperature as a bottle full of CO2?

Why not? Here’s where you can post the evidence that CO2 heats

Why not?

For the same reason your car isn't the same temperature as "the surrounding".

So gas is like solid? Post the evidence

The gas inside the bottle is like the gas inside your car.
Are you pretending to be dumb, to make SSDD feel better?

That gas is liquid. Are you saying CO2 is liquid?

Are you still drunk?

 

[Wuwei]

His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get.

Here, do try to learn something...maybe if you do, you won't be such a putz...then again....

Lucy Skywalker: Graeff’s Second Law Seminar

Sounds like Lucy Skywalker had a lot of fun on her trip.

Here's the deal: Graeff did his experiment using water not air. If he used air, he would probably get the atmospheric lapse rate. My objection is his conclusion that he thinks he could create a sort of perpetual motion of the second kind. He even said his system could generate work and decrease entropy. (Ludicrous)

If his experiment was large enough to generate a large thermal gradient from top to bottom, I presume he would use thermocouples to create a voltage potential. If his thermocouple was an open circuit, that would measure voltage only (which said he did). Let's assume he successful and sees a voltage. However as soon as he closed the circuit to draw current, I think the thermocouple junctions temperatures would change and cancel the whole effect.

Do you agree with him that his system can decrease entropy?
.

 

[SSDD]

His perpetual motion experiment was never repeated and verified. And he proudly says that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. That is about as stupid as you can get.

Here, do try to learn something...maybe if you do, you won't be such a putz...then again....

Lucy Skywalker: Graeff’s Second Law Seminar

Sounds like Lucy Skywalker had a lot of fun on her trip.

Here's the deal: Graeff did his experiment using water not air. If he used air, he would probably get the atmospheric lapse rate. My objection is his conclusion that he thinks he could create a sort of perpetual motion of the second kind. He even said his system could generate work and decrease entropy. (Ludicrous)

if you think that, then either you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem...from the second paragraph..."I went to Germany to join his seminar, and to examine for myself his apparatus that appears to measure vertical heat gradients in columns of air, water, and other substances in steady, non-convecting equilibrium, and appears to show that in isolation, they are warmer at the bottom than at the top."

If his experiment was large enough to generate a large thermal gradient from top to bottom, I presume he would use thermocouples to create a voltage potential. If his thermocouple was an open circuit, that would measure voltage only (which said he did). Let's assume he successful and sees a voltage. However as soon as he closed the circuit to draw current, I think the thermocouple junctions temperatures would change and cancel the whole effect.

Guess you missed, or ignored the part where ha had done the experiment more than 850 times as of 2012...no telling how many times by now checking the environment, vertical orientation, effects of size, effects of number of layers, the insulations, thermal equalizers, thermocouples, the instruments’ bias and sellotape fixings, the convectance impeders, substances actually tested, dataloggers, and software and anything else that might give a false positive for a temperature gradient.

And you deem to discount the lapse rate,,,if it is not a gravity/pressure induced temperature gradient, what is it?

Do you agree with him that his system can decrease entropy?
.

Where did he make that claim? Read. Maybe find an adult to help you comprehend what the words actually say rather than filtering them through your bias...you know..pretend to be an actual scientist rather than a practicing cult hack.

 

[Crick]

Here's something you might be able to get your teeth into. Direct measurements of greenhouse radiation with all your bullshit objections taken for what they're worth.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari))
W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA / Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

...
an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario (44o N, 78o W).

...

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe. The cause of the large uncertainty in the models resides in the difficulty of accurately predicting the climate feedback mechanisms that are associated with the interaction of oceans, vegetation, and clouds and water vapour with the greenhouse effect.

...

METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized. The calibration of the atmospheric measurements was performed by placing an ambient blackbody source beneath the gold mirror, filling the field-of-view of the spectrometer. The temperature of the blackbody was monitored by a chromelalumel thermocouple. The atmospheric emission measurements required 15-30 minutes of observing time. This resulted in a typical root-mean-square noise value of about 5.0×10-9 W/(cm2 sr cm-1) in the midinfrared region. The greenhouse radiation from tropospheric ozone was measured by a technique in which the base of cold clouds was used as a target. The thermal emission from the warm atmosphere below the cloud was measured against the low background emission from the cold cloud base (Puckrin et al., 1996). The cloud also screened out the emission from the stratospheric ozone above it, effectively restricting the sampling area to the lower troposphere.

...

Figure 1. A spectrum of the greenhouse radiation at the surface measured for February, 1996, showing the contributions of several greenhouse gases

 

[Wuwei]

if you think that, then either you didn't read, or have a reading comprehension problem...from the second paragraph..."I went to Germany to join his seminar, and to examine for myself his apparatus that appears to measure vertical heat gradients in columns of air, water, and other substances in steady, non-convecting equilibrium, and appears to show that in isolation, they are warmer at the bottom than at the top."

I skimmed through her article which read like a wide eyed girl at a science fair. So yes I didn't read the part about air. I did read Graeff's original paper that had far more substance.

Guess you missed, or ignored the part where ha had done the experiment more than 850 times as of 2012...no telling how many times by now checking the environment, vertical orientation, effects of size, effects of number of layers, the insulations, thermal equalizers, thermocouples, the instruments’ bias and sellotape fixings, the convectance impeders, substances actually tested, dataloggers, and software and anything else that might give a false positive for a temperature gradient.

And you deem to discount the lapse rate,,,if it is not a gravity/pressure induced temperature gradient, what is it?

Why would I guess that? All I meant is what he said himself at the end of his article, that the experiment should be verified by others.

Why do you think I would have discounted the lapse rate if he measured air? The gravity induced lapse rate was already measured long ago from surface to high in the atmosphere. His experiment would find the same lapse rate in a tube of air, even though the differential would be very small due to the relative shortness of the tube.

Where did he make that claim? Read. Maybe find an adult to help you comprehend what the words actually say rather than filtering them through your bias...you know..pretend to be an actual scientist rather than a practicing cult hack.

The original paper by Graeff that you quoted said (my bold face):

In isolated systems - with no exchange of matter and energy across its borders - force fields like gravity can generate in macroscopic assemblies of molecules temperature, density, and concentration gradients. The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.​

Do you believe his statement about entropy being decreased?

.