Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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?
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.
Blah blah blah CO2 absorbs IR...as if that meaningless drivel were news. You were clinging to that 5 degree global warming in a bottle full of CO2 as a quantitative, not just a qualitative proof of concept right up until now.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.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?
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.
I repeat, I am not contending that the absorption spectra of soil and water are responsible for the warming in those bottles.
I am contending that the scaling factors involved (time, mean path) tell us that its results are meaningfully scaled to reality. As Wuwei attempted to point out, the experiment was qualitative, not quantitative and all your objections are meaningless drivel simply meant to distract. CO2 absorbs LWIR and warms the atmosphere.
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?
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
IF you measured the bottles skin temperature you will find that is what is warming the bottle by convecting/conducting to the gas inside.. You people need to rule out all possibilities before concluding what caused the warming... You keep using a correlation without proof of causation as evidence...The bottle experiment shows they are wrong.
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
Dude, does the plastic absorb and emit? Let’s start thereI sometimes wonder just what they understand. If you are right, then they are veritable trolls.I think they understand it completely.
Billy, again, no control of the experiment! Many items missing, temperature of the ground, the plastic, compression hmmmmIF you measured the bottles skin temperature you will find that is what is warming the bottle by convecting/conducting to the gas inside.. You people need to rule out all possibilities before concluding what caused the warming... You keep using a correlation without proof of causation as evidence...The bottle experiment shows they are wrong.
And here we got another genius who still argues that the coke bottle full of CO2 is a correctly scaled down experiment of the atmosphere. As if a pile of 25^10^22 plastic bottles full of air would behave the same as the same amount of air without all that plastic.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.
And here we got another genius who still argues that the coke bottle full of CO2 is a correctly scaled down experiment of the atmosphere. As if a pile of 25^10^22 plastic bottles full of air would behave the same as the same amount of air without all that plastic.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.
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
You assume our atmosphere is a closed system?
The earth is NOT a closed system and LWIR escapes very easily from it.
Ah forget it they wanted to use that as a bait to deflect from the fact that you won`t need any CO2 at all to heat air in an enclosure which is not totally transparent in the IR spectrum.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?
It looked like a fair amount of resistance when he pushed the thermometer into the bottle cap...perhaps there wasn't as much pressure as if the vent had been open, but there was certainly more pressure than if there were an open vent. Any pressure greater than 1 bar would have resulted in the CO2 bottle being some amount warmer than the air bottle.
Again, here is the text to a video that used to be on the internet...unsure where it went, but it performed the bottle experiment with closed caps and with the bottles being vented...when the bottles were sealed, the result was predictable...the CO2 bottle was warmer due to the heat of compression...when the bottles were vented, there was no difference in temperature between the two.
The experiment in this link was performed with much more control than the simple thermometer stuck in a bottle experiment that fooled you guys.
Der CO2-Treibhauseffekt - Internet-Vademecum - A. Brandenberger
They each made several thousand posts about the back radiation of energy that had been absorbed being an additional energy source and suddenly have it not exist if something other than CO2 ( like PET plastic) absorbed it.
The absence of any convection was another major factor more significant than all the CO2 involved with this silly experiment. The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Too bad this video that (Physics) Prof.Dr.Gerlich and Tscheuschner posted is in German because they and over 1000 other scientist with a PhD in Physics say exactly what I have been arguing here.
No quantitative determination has ever been made that shows by how much atmospheric air warms in relation to the incremental increase of CO2 we contributed. They also say that neither the computer models nor the so called global average temperature reports are based on any of the science needed to actually calculate the forecast numbers that get published. It is a complete farce to present these estimations based on questionable statistical methods as if they had been scientifically determined. And as I said, + all the skeptics in this forum keep saying ( and ~ 1000 physics PhDs also say) this much quoted consensus among "climatologists" is a tool that may be acceptable and useful in politics but has no place in Physics.
The greenhouse effect goes poof as soon as you open the roof vents of a greenhouse.
Where are the roof vents of our atmosphere?
What might the IQ be of somebody who argues that the atmosphere has a glass roof ?
And here we got another genius who still argues that the coke bottle full of CO2 is a correctly scaled down experiment of the atmosphere. As if a pile of 25^10^22 plastic bottles full of air would behave the same as the same amount of air without all that plastic.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.
He also thinks that scuba tanks are analogous to the atmosphere. If he thought it would support his argument, he would claim that a brick is analogous to the atmosphere.
And here we got another genius who still argues that the coke bottle full of CO2 is a correctly scaled down experiment of the atmosphere. As if a pile of 25^10^22 plastic bottles full of air would behave the same as the same amount of air without all that plastic.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.
He also thinks that scuba tanks are analogous to the atmosphere. If he thought it would support his argument, he would claim that a brick is analogous to the atmosphere.
And when are EITHER of you going to explain to us why the CO2 bottle was 5C warmer in 30 minutes time?
And here we got another genius who still argues that the coke bottle full of CO2 is a correctly scaled down experiment of the atmosphere. As if a pile of 25^10^22 plastic bottles full of air would behave the same as the same amount of air without all that plastic.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.
He also thinks that scuba tanks are analogous to the atmosphere. If he thought it would support his argument, he would claim that a brick is analogous to the atmosphere.
When are EITHER of you going to explain to us why the CO2 bottle was 5C warmer?
From the Script for the video
"A popular science experiment that purports to prove that adding extra carbon dioxide to the air will cause an enhanced "greenhouse effect" goes something like this.
Start with two bottles:
One of the bottles is left with regular air in it
and the other bottle is filled with carbon dioxide
from a seltzer bottle, carbon dioxide cartridge, dry ice or whatever.
Experiment #1
Since I used data recorders to monitor the temperature inside the bottles in my experiment, I put these recorders into the bottles before adding the carbon dioxide to one of them.
I left a third data recorder outside of the bottles away from the experiment but in the same room so that I could measure the temperature change of each gas above room temperature when they were heated with infrared radiation.
I then closed the lids on both bottles tight enough to keep the gases from escaping during the experiment. Once the bottles were prepared heat lamps of equal strength were positioned at equal distance from each bottle and the lamps were then turned on.
I recorded what happened and here are my results.
On this graph the red line is the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is the temperature of the regular air.
The carbon dioxide reached about 22 degrees Celsius above room temperature, while the regular air only reached about 16 degrees Celsius above room temperature.
As you can also see in this graph the carbon dioxide got warmer more quickly than the regular air and stayed about 6 degrees Celsius warmer throughout the experiment.
This experiment has been performed hundreds of times at science fairs around the country and it is proclaimed to be empirical evidence of the 'greenhouse effect', which postulates that the greater warming of the carbon dioxide in this experiment is caused by the carbon dioxide absorbing more infrared radiation than did the regular air, thus affirming the belief that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will cause it to be warmer than it would otherwise be.
Experiment #2
So, after the bottles cooled to room temperature
I repeated the experiment with the lids vented to allow the gases to expand as they would in the real atmosphere and these are the results that I got.
As you can see, that which was being called the "greenhouse effect" disappeared when the gases were allowed to expand freely the way they do in the outside atmosphere.
On this second graph the red line is still the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is still the temperature of the air, but as you can see they now track together quite nicely.
Also notice that without the 'heat of compression' even the air only warms about 7 degrees Celsius, which is less than half of the 16 degrees Celsius of warming that it experienced under the 'heat of compression.'
....you get the graph on the right, which shows virtually no temperature differential between carbon dioxide and air when heated by infrared radiation.
What can we conclude from this experiment?
When carbon dioxide is allowed to expand when heated it does not become any warmer than does regular air, therefore this experiment contains no evidence that carbon dioxide causes an enhanced "greenhouse effect".
Rather it confirms what is already know, that carbon dioxide has, what is called, a greater "coefficient of thermal expansion" than does regular air........
