A recommended video
"Greenhouse in A Bottle Experiment - Reconsidered" explains in very simple terms why the so-called 'greenhouse effect' is simply due to the compression of the atmosphere from gravity, and why adding 'greenhouse gases' will not warm the planet.
Script from the video
A related post,
Shattering the Greenhouse Effect, by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called 'greenhouse effect' using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.
Reading about the results others got isn’t as much fun as doing it myself.
ReplyDeleteI also know what to believe and what is BS. I am an engineer and am quite good at recognizing BS.
I did my own version of the 101 experiment.
I used 1 plastic jar and 1 sunlamp to eliminate the variables in jar thickness and sunlamp brightness. I lined the bottom with paper towels so the thermometer wouldn’t be sampling the jar material temperature. The distance was also measured and repeatable. I didn’t turn the sunlamp off ever. [each trial was 10 minutes]
The top was open but CO2 is heavier than air and there was no wind.
CO2 was courtesy of baking soda and water. I have no meter to measure %. But it was close to 100 %.
I bought an instant read digital meat thermometer [Farberware] accurate to .1 ° F [at least repeatable] . I used only one because different ones differ by .2 ° F or more.
Between trials I brought the vessel to the same temperature.
I repeated each trial several times and obtained a baseline.
Results:
Baseline:
Heating was about 39.7 ° F with a range of +or – 1 °
[the amount of light hitting the thermometer was hard to keep constant.]
CO2 trials
Heating was 39.4 ° F with the same error range.
The results suggest even 100 % CO2 produces no measurable warming.
Thanks Netdr for your results
ReplyDeleteOver at WUWT, despite showing how Gore's greenhouse in a bottle was faked, Anthony misses the key point that the tops must be left open to have any relevance to the atmosphere.
I've been conducting this same experiment since the middle of the Copenhagen summit in December 09. In fact I do believe I was the first to do so. My results have always been consistent with those of Netdr above.
ReplyDeletewww.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/AGW_Debunked_again.pdf
At the time the BBC tried to counter me with a blatant fraud.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
Well done to you Netdr, finally after almost 2 years, people are catching on.
Congratulations, deniers, you have refuted a sixth-grade science fair experiment. Now if you have the guts, try it again with closed bottles, so you don't contaminate your own experiment. But this time, instead of CO2 vs. air, make it CO2 vs. krypton. Since krypton is heavier than air, if Brehmer is right, the krypton should heat faster. (Hint: it won't. Krypton isn't a greenhouse gas.)
ReplyDeleteApparently you completely missed the explanation why closed bottles CANNOT be used. Note the atmosphere is not a closed bottle. Watch the video again and study the ideal gas law.
ReplyDeleteThe CO2 bottle MUST have a higher pressure, because CO2 is absorbing energy while the air is not. By opening the bottle, you're letting that energy escape. And then you triumphantly point to the open bottle and say, see? If we cook the books in our favor, we can pretend the Ponzi scheme works.
ReplyDeleteNot scientific, not controlled, and not believable by anyone with a brain.
Once again, you totally miss the point. Watch the video again "second lesser known variable present in this experiment is the fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air so when it absorbs thermal energy by any means, either through conduction or radiation it expands with greater force than does air. This is because its heavier molecules carry more kinetic energy than air molecules...."
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/13/assessment-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-and-catastrophic-global-warming-potential-based-on-the-historical-data-record/#comment-1567147
ReplyDelete