No Evidence

[SSDD]

What compression? Both bottles were open to the atmosphere and then capped and lain out in the sun. The pressure did go up inside them afterwards but it was as a result of them being radiantly heated.

You really are an idiot aren't you. The bottles were open right out up till the time that they weren't. You set a caped bottle how in the sun what do you think happens to the air in the bottle? Refer to heat of compression. Learn why CO2 under compression would heat more than air under compression. Here is a hint for you, it has nothing to do with C02 heating the atmosphere.

You guys are so easy to fool, it is no surprise that you have been duped.

 

[Wuwei]

Heat of compression. Look it up....Again, you demonstrate how easily you are fooled.

Here is the text of an experiment that explains it.

Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger

The reference you cited said that the two bottles were sealed tight. The CO2 would expand more than the air and be under higher pressure because they were at constant volume. Thus, because of the gas law the CO2 would have an extra increase in temperature over the air bottle. Lets look at the math.

Coefficient of thermal expansion at constant volume
CO2 . . . 0.00372
AIR . . . 0.00366
Difference 0.00006

The final difference in temperature between the two bottles in the experiment you referred to is 6 C. The difference in the the coefficients of expansion at constant volume times the difference in temperature results in a pressure difference of:

.00006 x 6 C = 0.00012 = 0.012%

From the gas law that pressure difference would give a temperature adjustment of an extra 0.012% for CO2. That would not register even on a good thermometer.

So the author of the site you referenced simply were wrong and guessed, as you did, that the effect of sealed volumes would be even measurable.

.

 

[SSDD]

Heat of compression. Look it up....Again, you demonstrate how easily you are fooled.

Here is the text of an experiment that explains it.

Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger

The reference you cited said that the two bottles were sealed tight. The CO2 would expand more than the air and be under higher pressure because they were at constant volume. Thus, because of the gas law the CO2 would have an extra increase in temperature over the air bottle. Lets look at the math.

Coefficient of thermal expansion at constant volume
CO2 . . . 0.00372
AIR . . . 0.00366
Difference 0.00006

The final difference in temperature between the two bottles in the experiment you referred to is 6 C. The difference in the the coefficients of expansion at constant volume times the difference in temperature results in a pressure difference of:

.00006 x 6 C = 0.00012 = 0.012%

From the gas law that pressure difference would give a temperature adjustment of an extra 0.012% for CO2. That would not register even on a good thermometer.

So the author of the site you referenced simply were wrong and guessed, as you did, that the effect of sealed volumes would be even measurable.

.

So again, you reject observed measured, repeatable evidence. How predictable is that?

 

[Crick]

So, again, you reject basic physics in order to support insane, idiotic contentions for which you cannot find a single person on this planet to back you up. How predictable is that

 

[polarbear]

There is no compression worth mentioning happening when a thermometer stuck in a hole which was poked into a bottle cap is the seal. What matters is that there was no way for the gas to vent and get replaced by ambient air. The global warming in a bottle scientists pile on SSDD because it`s all they got to deflect from the fact that you need 2500 times the present CO2 concentration before you can register the CO2 warming effect in a bottle (that got only 5 degrees warmer than the control.)
It could have been done in a plastic tent for all that matters, but that would take more CO2 and more time as well. 100% CO2 in a plastic bottle and still needing 1800 seconds to heat just 2 liters of it is the equivalent of 0.0083 Joules per second is not the kind of evidence it takes to prove that 0.04% CO2 can heat the entire globe by a measurable number of degrees. You might as well start worrying how much of the global warming is caused by TV infrared remote controls. Every graph this junk science publishes is deliberately scaled to assert a linear relationship between ppm CO2 and Temperature. So I am at liberty to state that this 100% CO2 bottle showed that the control, the 400 ppm got only 0.000 003 Joules/sec extra from the CO2 and the rest of it was due to moisture and what the plastic absorbed.

 

[Crick]

In a matter of 30 minutes, the bottle exceeded the Earth's warming from the last 150 years three-fold. Where did you get the idea that was insignificant?

 

[polarbear]

In a matter of 30 minutes, the bottle exceeded the Earth's warming from the last 150 years three-fold. Where did you get the idea that was insignificant?

Hahaha so did the control (bottle). It warmed up by 20 degrees just by being in a bottle as opposed to the same air in the yard. This was a demonstration how much infrared the polyethylene terephtalate plastic can absorb rather than 400 ppm and 100% CO2.

Needing 2500 times as much CO2 than the control and 1/2 an hour just to get 5 degrees more should give you an idea just how insignificant it is. Your claim is like saying a wimp that can`t split a single round of wood in less than 30 minutes and 2500 tries is a significant threat in a lumberjack competition.

 

[Crick]

Both bottles are evidence of the greenhouse theory. The CO2 bottle is evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Other than that, there is no viable explanation for the CO2 bottle having gotten warmer than the air bottle.

The thermometer was measuring air temperature, not plastic temperature. and would you like to put that spectrum up against one for, say, soil?

 

[Crick]

 

[polarbear]

The thermometer was measuring air temperature, not plastic temperature
Very very funny because it`s so stupid.
Why would I have to put it up against soil instead of CO2, water vapor or whatever else besides the PET plastic was in play? Typical ! Now it`s off to whatever you want to use to change the subject.
The air temperature during the entire time was 25 degrees. Your "plastic temperature" rabbit hole is no explanation why it only takes a plastic bottle and no additional CO2 to heat it from 25 to 45 degrees and a whopping 2500 fold increase of CO2 for another 5 degrees above that... and that too happened in a plastic bottle. And as defender of "science" it`s not your problem..as usual (!!!) to prove that the bottle had no impact on the outcome. You really think that 97% of these so called scientists would agree with you on that ?
Next summer roll up the windows while you are parked and find out if the enclosure has no impact on the air that is going to cook you.

 

[Crick]

I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial. And it was. And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment. You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just got around to looking at the video of the two bottles. It was very amusing. That simple experiment should really shut up those who think CO2 has no ability to affect radiation. Polarbear and JC are such sore losers, lashing out about touching the thermometer, or laying bottles on the ground, or thermometers being miscalibrated by 5 C or 9 F. If cheating was used in the experiment, you can guarantee that there will be a whole host of videos put out by the deniers.

LOL.... and you morons think 400ppm vs 1000000000ppm is comparable. You guys really are ignorant of reality.

 

[Crick]

Anything beyond 1,000,000 ppm is nonsense. 150 years is 2,620,000 times the 30 minutes those bottles got. Then there is the mean path length: the full height of the atmosphere is over 750,000 times the diameter of a soda bottle. I think we are in a completely compatible range scale.

 

[Wuwei]

Heat of compression. Look it up....Again, you demonstrate how easily you are fooled.

Here is the text of an experiment that explains it.

Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger

The reference you cited said that the two bottles were sealed tight. The CO2 would expand more than the air and be under higher pressure because they were at constant volume. Thus, because of the gas law the CO2 would have an extra increase in temperature over the air bottle. Lets look at the math.

Coefficient of thermal expansion at constant volume
CO2 . . . 0.00372
AIR . . . 0.00366
Difference 0.00006

The final difference in temperature between the two bottles in the experiment you referred to is 6 C. The difference in the the coefficients of expansion at constant volume times the difference in temperature results in a pressure difference of:

.00006 x 6 C = 0.00012 = 0.012%

From the gas law that pressure difference would give a temperature adjustment of an extra 0.012% for CO2. That would not register even on a good thermometer.

So the author of the site you referenced simply were wrong and guessed, as you did, that the effect of sealed volumes would be even measurable.

.

So again, you reject observed measured, repeatable evidence. How predictable is that?

That comment has no relevance to my post that constant volume bottles holding the CO2 and Air does not influence that observed measured, repeatable experiment.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, did you not catch Polar Bear's comment that the thermometer hole in the cap would have precluded any pressure build up in the bottles?

 

[Wuwei]

I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial. And it was. And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment. You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?

Yes, the point of the bottle experiment is that it is a simple counter-example. They have been saying that CO2 has absolutely no ability to absorb heat. The bottle experiment shows they are wrong. Now they are arguing it had no exact relation to the earth atmosphere. Of course it didn't. They don't understand that it disproves their major point and was never meant to model the details of the actual kilometers of atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

I think they understand it completely.

 

[Wuwei]

I think they understand it completely.

I sometimes wonder just what they understand. If you are right, then they are veritable trolls.

 

[polarbear]

I put up the soil and vegetation to show that the amount of warming the bottles themselves experienced was trivial. And it was. And besides, we have bottles on both sides of this experiment. You are still blithely skipping over the crucial point because you wish us to do so as well: tell us why the CO2 bottle was warmer than the air bottle?

How many more times do I have to tell you? It had 2500 times the CO2 than the control which is the crucial point you are blithely skipping over....and all you got is a 5 degree increase over the control for 2 liters in 30 minutes....and you call that a significant warming effect while the control increased by 20 degrees is supposedly trivial. If you want to make it appear otherwise by comparing that to a soil and vegetation warming effect which had nothing at all to do with that silly experiment feel free to delude yourself and lets pretend that the air in the yard with the soil and grass got warmer than the control bottle.
In addition to that pretending that AGW skeptics deny that CO2 absorbs IR is just more of the same, deluding yourself by pretending I said something to that effect.

 

[boedicca]

AGW is not science...it is a Faith Based Religion in which the Elite Witch Doctors threaten and terrify the peasants in order to extract tribute.