Damn but you are gullible. That experiment, as with most experiments that claim to demonstrate the greenhouse effect does not demonstrate it at all. It is an excellent demonstration of the heat of compression. That experiment is easy enough to do yourself so try it and instead of plugging up the top of the bottles, do it with the bottles open. If the CO2 can expand out into the open atmosphere, rather than being held under pressure in the bottle, the temperatures inside the bottles will be identical.
What is disappointing is that a government agency claims that idiot experiment is an somehow proof that CO2 in the open atmosphere can cause warming. Again, ample proof of your ignorance and sufficient explanation as to how you were so easily duped.
you're an idiot.
the bottle is capped to represent our atmosphere, my-fuggin-gaaawd your Neanderthals are dumb
You are the one who is the idiot here. No matter how often it`s pointed out how and from where CO2 absorbs IR you keep coming back here with CO2 in a bottle which is directly irradiated with a heat lamp.
How many times have I told you now (???) that no skeptic with a science background ever disputed that CO2 absorbs IR at the 15 µm "window"hich is the only spectral region where the other IR absorbers do not absorb.
The entire argument since AGW has been studied is not if CO2 absorbs IR !!!....which is the only thing any of these bottled up CO2 under a heat lamp are addressing.
Why is it that they even bother. We (analytical Chemists) have known that long before any of these stupid CO2 in a bottle experiments were done.
The argument is if there is a net gain of energy ...and exact numbers by how much ...if sunlight first has to make it through the entire atmosphere (which does absorb IR) and then, if what is left of the energy, mostly in the visible and UV range is actually converted to long wave IR.
No skeptic disputes that stage of the process either.
But that`s where the disagreements are already starting.
And for good reasons
Because that varies wildly from place to place due to albedo, angle of incidence etc. and (exactly) how much of the incident sunlight is actually converted to IR in the 15 µm spectral region by the surface.
Again nobody with a background in science "denies" that CO2 absorbs IR from that portion and re-radiates some of it back down.
The question is exactly how much energy that would be.
Why "exactly" ?...because we do need exact numbers if we want to predict temperature increase over long time periods.
Only total dimwits like you would now cite CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations to answer to how much that would be exactly.
And that is the reason why nobody associated with any of the computer models the IPCC is using, makes any reference to any of these childish greenhouse gas demonstrations you keep posting here
What they do in any of these computer model simulations is at first they calculate the energy total a black body generates at 15 µm.
In order to do that you would first have to know the exact temperature of that black body.
And that is where skeptics also are not convinced that the models are correct....why not?
Because as with the first stage this temperature also varies wildly from place to place and with time.
Nothing could be easier than proving the IPCC models, their calculations and the numbers they come up with as "settled science" to be woefully wrong.
It requires no effort from skeptics to prove that, all it takes is one look at the results of these calculations and how much they diverge from reality.
Everybody who is involved in these complex calculations is aware of this fact...and are trying their best to solve this problem
Only total morons like you would conclude that kiddie experiment demonstrations how CO2 gets warmer in a bottle under a heat lamp solve the problems that experts in the field with a huge budget have not been able to solve.
.
Last edited: