WUWT has an article up with a peer reviewed paper debunking the Gore/Nye experiment and the physics behind it. The paper may even have a theoretical estimate for the CO2 effect of a 120 ppm increase but I haven't read it because I only have my phone with me.
It appears to redo some of the 'highschool' experiments with argon instead of CO2 because the density is similar but there is no IR absorption. I would be interested in hearing more about it if somebody checks it out.
Not only gore/nye but all of that "green house in a jar sort of experiment"...They are demonstrating an entirely different sett of physics than the hypothetical greenhouse effect....as a control, the scientists used argon (roughly same density as CO2 but invisible to IR) and the argon heated up more than the CO2.
The experiments are bogus....including the myth busters experiment.
As an interesting sidebar...the IR lamps that people typically use in these experiments have an output of about 1000K and radiate at a wavelength of about 3 microns.... So you have an IR source radiating at 10,000 times the radiance of earth and thousands of times more CO2 in the containers than found in the atmosphere and the best they can do is manage a 1.5 to 2 degree temperature increase... If the experiment were meant to approximate the conditions found in the atmosphere, they would have to have a thermal radiator radiating at about 288K which would be the equivalent of putting a bottle of water at about 58 degrees which would radiate about 390 watts per square meter of 10.1 micron radiation. How much warming do you think they would get from that setup?....for that matter, how much warming do you think happens out in the real world if under rigged conditions they can only manage 2 degrees with a radiator putting out ten thousand times more radiation than the earth radiating thousands of times more CO2 than is found in the atmosphere. Do you really think that a doubling of CO2 will result in 1 degree?
