UPDATE: Jeff provides his answer below
Guest post by Jeff Condon (reposted by request from The Air vent)
Derek has been in a war with ScienceofDoom over the what appears to be Planck radiation. I’m actually not sure of his position because it doesn’t make sense yet to me but he left a thought experiment on the thread which could make for some interesting discussion. Some will find it pretty easy, while I bet others will get all tied in knots over it. As a suggestion, taking a thought experiment to an extreme is often a good way to identify a preferred design path or to understand differences in similar situations. I will give the answers in the coming days, they are already written so I can’t back out but as you consider them I’ll warn that this post is not about the subtleties but rather about the bulk differences.
I’m going to paraphrase Derek’s experiment below and then add another of my own. If it’s not the exact same as his it doesn’t matter the idea is still interesting.
For our experiment assume we have a bolometric camera for measuring emitted thermal radiation as an image. IOW a cool toy which in this case happens to detect all EM wavelengths with perfect sensitivity. To be clear, the camera integrates to measure the radiative emission temperature of the object.
We have two plants, one is contained in a transparent box (greenhouse) the other in open air, both thermally stable (temperature isn’t changing). We take an image of the two plants in the early afternoon on our fancy camera, what do you find in the image?
Derek asserts that the greenhouse plant will be warmer and therefore brighter, but lets continue this experiment further.
For our second experiment we have two thermally stabilized earths, one which has today’s CO2 and one which has 2X today’s level. All other conditions are identical and for some quirk of Id-ian physics, they orbit one right behind the other around the sun such that we can observe them simultaneously on our fancy camera. Now the CO2 of the higher concentration planet will block some of the emitted radiation creating the AGW greenhouse effect so the planet has a 1C warmer surface temperature. (For this thought experiment basic physics are required, planets are stabilized and I’m going with a 1C estimate chosen at random). Since it’s my universe, I’m staying on the warm Earth with a functional economy (right side) and sending all the vegetable eating enviros over to the cold economically devastated one on the left. haha- too fun, I probably should stick to the science for this though.
Now from a distant point we observe our otherwise identical worlds using our amazingly fancy camera. What would our camera reveal?
I’ll give the answers to these with supporting explanations tomorrow or the next day depending on how much fun people are having.
============================================================
1/2/2011 Jeff’s answer:
Ok, so the point of this thought experiment was to engage the public in a consideration of the differences between the greenhouse effect and an actual greenhouse. Most here already know that the name itself is a misnomer, but by considering the physics of what is going on we can better understand the argument and better present our opinions on the subject. The majority of the answer below was emailed to Anthony yesterday before he ran the post at WUWT with the note- just to make sure I can’t back out!
I know everyone is wondering what my answers will be to the two greenhouse situations, we’ll see how many will be convinced to change their opinions – or insist that I change mine 😉 . It turns out that both problems are fairly straightforward when considered from an engineering standpoint. In the thermally stabilized systems of the example where temperature is not changing, energy into the system is equal to energy out. We’ll cover the greenhouse vs free air plant situation first. Both plants receive the same energy but the ability to remove heat from the system is limited in the greenhouse plant through convection and evaporation. So in the case of the free air plant, although it is receiving the same energy it has 3 methods of cooling: convection, evaporation and radiation. In the case of the greenhouse, we can consider evaporation and convection negligible so the only option to release the energy is through radiation. Since our camera is only measuring radiation, and since both plants must emit the same energy they receive, the free air plant radiation will sum like this:
Measured EM radiation = Energy in – convection energy – evaporation energy
the greenhouse will sum like this
Measured EM radiation = Energy in – zero convection energy – zero evaporation energy
Therefore the camera will show the greenhouse plant as warmer (brighter) than the free air plant. This holds true even if we include non-zero convection and evaporation for the greenhouse because they are still reduced values requiring a higher EM emission to balance the energy equations.
So now we have the situation where we have two planets, one with more CO2 than the other. We know that CO2 absorbs certain outgoing wavelengths of light. We also know energy in is equal to energy out for both planets. Although this is called the greenhouse effect, it is actually quite different. For both the high and low CO2 planets, the only available cooling mechanism is EM radiation. All the energy coming in has to escape by EM radiation to space, so the equations balance like this.
Measured EM radiation = Energy in
That’s it really. Both planets will measure exactly the same to our camera yet one has a higher surface temperature. The reason this works is that the average energy emission altitude has gone up, allowing a warmer surface yet the net flow is the same.
Caveats: Now I warned that some will get tied in knots over the nuance of this example. There are all kinds of subtleties of the situation which cause minute differences in the planet example. For instance, increasing CO2 will increase the albedo to incoming light, reducing reflected energy and we get a microscopically higher energy in and therefore were our camera of perfect accuracy we could measure a very slightly higher measured radiation from the warmer planet. If this is your explanation, we are in agreement. There are other details as well, but in bulk the answers are A – greenhouse plant is brighter, and B – both are the same.
I read several comments which got the right answer, Carrick was the first to write the correct answer in the comments at tAV, although he kept the answers subtle enough that people had to read it carefully. If you were one who got them both, congratulations. If you are unconvinced by my explanations, ask away and I’ll do my best.
Jeff
Here is another thought experiment. This time its a thought experiment with a slight twist. Unlike Jeff Id’s thought experiment which can never be conducted and tested in the real world, this one can be reproduced by everyone. So its not really a thought experiment at all, its a real experiment but it also works as a thought experiment.
Here goes:
We all wear clothes to keep warm in the winter. The reason we do so is because several layers of clothes trap Air which is then warmed by our body heat via all three modes of heat transmission, conduction, convection and radiation.
So exhale some of that nasty CO2 from your evil old lungs into your under garments.
Your evil “Greenhouse Gas” breath will typically be warmer than the trapped air in your clothing so it will already have a head start in the heat trapping/IR warming stakes right?
So after five or six large exhalations of 40,000 ppm CO2, turning the air content of your string vest into an EPA environmental disaster zone, what happens?
A) Does it get warmer and warmer until you are forced to strip off to quell the vicious feedback loop now occurring with the rivers sweat evaporating from your fat hairy belly?
B) Does it remain at the temperature of your foul smelling human CO2 exhaust, a few degrees above the natural temperature of the air (99% O2 and N2) that was readily warmed conductively, convectively and by your bodies IR emissions?
Or
C) Does all that dangerous “heat absorbing” CO2 just simply cool back down to your bodies and clothes equilibrium temperature within just a few seconds, as you already knew it would?
Regardless of what the Jeff Id’s or Roy Spencer’s of this world try and convince us of with their impossible to replicate “Greenhouse Effect””thought experiments”, the temperature of the atmosphere is determined by the equilibrium temperature of its main constituents,
79% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen
and not by its trace gases such as CO2 at 0.0385%.
As can be seen from the above example, even if you heat high concentrations of CO2 above ambient air temperatures, it will quickly, within just a few seconds, be forced into equilibrium with the ambient air inside that environment, be it trapped in your underwear, enclosed inside a greenhouse or trapped by gravity around a planet.
The so called “Greenhouse Effect” requires that you suspend all knowledge gleaned from your five senses and believe that a concentration of just 0.0385% CO2 heated by just a few hundred W/m2 can force the entire atmosphere of O2 and N2 into equilibrium with itself.
But the most bizarre thing of all is that millions of gullible fools fell for it.
The biggest and most brazen fraud in the history of science.
Tim
Mum said I mustn’t feed the Troll’s!
For Jeff ID :
I for one would like to thank you for conceiving this thought experiment. And thank you for clarifying the basic physics that underwrite the theory of GHG warming, even in the face of intimidating remarks against you by people who do not understand the physics, or seem to be distracted by irrelevant details or a political agenda. Thank you for standing up to such remarks and you have increased my confidence that there are really skeptics out there that confirm basic physics, and are willing to speak up for science in the face of political opinions.
ourson polaire
“The surface of the 2xCO2 planet will be a little brighter (because Jeff said so, basic physics) therefore some part of the atmosphere must appear cooler.
But how exactly does the troposphere or the tropopause get cooler when the surface warms up? That’s what I still don’t understand. ”
I don’t really understand why the atmosphere must appear cooler. The tropopause simply emits from a higher cooler layer.
O H Dahlsveen,
“one of the main reasons why I cannot grasp the “Greenhouse Theory” is this: I see Radiation, Conduction and Convection/ Evaporation as “Energy Transportation Systems” (ETS). It is therefore implausible, to my mind, that any of the above ETSs can increase the global temperature any more than the passenger railway system can increase the world’s human population – Nor any more than you can increase the temperature of water in a glass by pouring it into another glass and back again -. ”
The missing point, I think, is the difference between power and energy. Power is energy per second. In the case of outgoing energy, it flows from the surface to space. If you place a bottleneck in the flow, the energy crunches together tighter so the power can keep flowing at the same rate. Higher density energy, is heat. So you create a region of heat without affecting the net flow — the planets appear the same.
Don’t know if that helps.
Will:
January 3, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I can’t understand you again. You have heat capacity mixed with absorption mixed with mashed potatoes again.
How many apples does it take to make an orange?
Rob,
Thanks, it’s a little frustrating sometimes, but hopefully a worthwhile effort for some.
I have got a few more simple questions listed below:
Why, I wonder do “climate Scientists” seem obsessed with sending all the incoming solar radiation back into space?
Have they never heard of latent heat?
Don’t they know that all the solar energy is in space already, just like the Earth is?
AGW people may wish to shut down the world economy (and with all the good help they are getting from politicians at the moment, they may succeed) but it should be quite easy for scientists to deduce that if energy in equals’ energy out 24/7 then we would only be left with “geo-thermals” There would be no fossil fuels and nobody to burn them.. – The planet would be dead. The Earth itself and everything on it uses /transforms energy all the time. Where do these people think “Nuclear Energy” comes from? It comes from bits containing latent energy which when brought together react in a certain way to create heat so that we can raise steam with which we can run turbines to create electricity.
Now then, with the kind of radiation that nuclear creates we would maybe be better off if it would leave the Earth system. But it won’t and it can’t.
And lastly if energy was to leave the system then natural “Adiabatic Cooling” would still be possible but the opposite natural “Adiabatic Warming” would not as once convection stop at, or near to, the top of the troposphere the energy would be “radiated further through the different spheres and eventually out to space.
However the Foehn Winds proves that the energy is still there. These particular winds happen on the ‘lee side’ of mountains all over the world and the proof of that is that regionally, these winds are known by many different names. These include:
• Lyvas wind in Greece
• Zonda winds in Argentina
• Chinook winds east of the Rocky Mountains, in the United States and Canada, and north, east and west of the Chugach Mountains of Alaska, United States
• The Nor’wester in Hawkes Bay, Canterbury and Otago, New Zealand
• Föhn in Wollongong and South Coast, NSW Australia. Often associated with heavy orographic lifiting on the windward side of the escarpment
• Halny in the Carpathian Mountains, Central Europe
• Fogony in the Catalan Pyrenees
• Bergwind in South Africa
• Viento del Sur (Southern Wind) in the Cantabrian region (northern Spain)
• Terral in Málaga (southern Spain)
• Föhn in Austria, southern Germany, German-speaking regions of Switzerland and Northern Italy (even non German-speaking regions)
• Puelche wind in Chile.
• Favonio in Ticino and Italy
• The Helm wind, on the Pennines in the Eden Valley, Cumbria, England
• Garmoosh, Garmesh, Garmbaad (Warm Wind): (Persian: گرمباد, Gilaki: گرموش) in Gilan region, in the south of Caspian Sea in Iran
• Hnúkaþeyr in Icelandic.
• Vântul Mare in the Carpathian Mountains, Romania.
The Santa Ana winds of southern California are in some ways similar to the Föhn, but originate in dry deserts as a katabatic wind.
All these names have been collected and reprinted from “Wikipedia”
Only reading the first couple responses (so I couldn’t cheat), I’d say the 2 planets will have the same integrated “brightness”, but the one w/more CO2 will have its spectrum shifted to slightly lower frequencies (a cooler TOA). If your camera just measured bulk (integrated) radiation w/o considering frequency, it would show no difference in watts emitted.
Jeff Id
“I don’t really understand why the atmosphere must appear cooler. The tropopause simply emits from a higher cooler layer.”
If the surface of the 2xCO2 planet is 1 degree warmer it’s surface area will look brighter on the image of our fancy camera. Some part of the atmosphere must therefore be cooler. Otherwise the image of this planet would really be brighter than that of the other planet. This can not be the case in equilibrium.
Are you implying that all the energy that was absorbed by the column of CO2 molecules is released at the top of it? And with a doubling of CO2 the column extends higher into the tropopause where it is cooler? Releasing trapped energy in the absorption bandwidth of CO2 but at a lower temperature than it could have if the column would only reach up to lower and warmer strata of the atmosphere?
I have already described how I see it. Was it wrong?
Thank you again for bringing up and discussing the “simple” issues.
Yes, Jeff ID it would help if you could tell me where that “new Bottleneck” is. According to the IPCC’s own models a bottleneck (i.e. warming by greenhouse gases) would create a “Hot Spot” just below that bottleneck. IPCC models even pin pointed where that Hotspot should or could be found.
No “Hot Spot” has ever been found. And quite meekly we seem to agree with the AGW crowd “That it does not matter anyway.” Maybe that is because a missing hot spot proves there is no Natural Greenhouse effect either.
Power v. energy: All Energy Flow Plans use the same description for energy in as for energy out, i.e. W/m². They even say “energy out equals energy in”
O H Dahlsveen says:
January 4, 2011 at 9:38 am
“According to the IPCC’s own models a bottleneck (i.e. warming by greenhouse gases) would create a “Hot Spot” just below that bottleneck. IPCC models even pin pointed where that Hotspot should or could be found.”
Now that is a warming magnitude issue, and I think we’re in agreement that there are some serious problems there.
“Power v. energy: All Energy Flow Plans use the same description for energy in as for energy out, i.e. W/m². They even say “energy out equals energy in”
I know, it’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine – even though I messed it up above 😉 Watts is a unit of power of course, not energy. Whether you get it or not, people misunderstand that point all the time.
Jeff Id says:
January 4, 2011 at 7:22 am
“Will:
January 3, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I can’t understand you again. You have heat capacity mixed with absorption mixed with mashed potatoes again.”
CO2, O2 and N2
Thermal Conductivity – k – (W/mK)
Temperature (ºC)
Carbon dioxide (gas) 0.0146
Nitrogen 0.024
Oxygen 0.024
Specific Heat Capacity
cp cv
(kJ/kg K) (kJ/kg K)
Carbon dioxide CO2 0.844 0.655
Nitrogen N2 1.04 0.743
Oxygen O2 0.919 0.659
“The specific heat capacity represents the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg by 1oC, and can be thought of as the ability of a substance to absorb heat. Therefore the SI units of specific heat capacity are kJ/kg K (kJ/kg oC). Water has a very large specific heat capacity (4.19 kJ/kg ºC) compared with many fluids.”
Water is a good heat carrier!
From: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html
So as you might expect, water has a much higher specific heat capacity than CO2. Well guess what? So does O2 and N2 as you can see above.
But wait, didn’t Jeff Id tell us in his amazing, impossible to reproduce, “thought experiment” that quote:
“We know that CO2 absorbs certain outgoing wavelengths of light.”
So surely that must mean that CO2’s ability to absorb a tiny portion of IR in the 15 mµ region of the IR spectrum means it is a really scary “Greenhouse Gas” and is so powerful that it determines the temperature of the entire atmosphere right?
Because we all know that absorption of tiny portions of the IR spectrum trumps the specific heat capacities of gases and their ability to absorb heat don’t we. You know “heat”, that stuff that melts ice and causes “global warming”.
Well lets try another thought experiment shall we:
Oopsie!
That was a REAL easily reproducible experiment, not an impossible to replicate and therefore impossible to validate post normal “thought experiment”.
Sorry, my bad!
When a CO2 molecule absorbs energy in the form of light/IR, the energy will cause the CO2 molecule to vibrate faster (become hotter). But if that CO2 molecule is at the same time being forced into temperature equilibrium by the higher specific heat capacities of both O2 and N2 in which it is immersed at a ratio of more than 1200/1, the only thing the CO2 molecule can do is re-emit (becoming cooler).
Therefore the dominant factor in the atmosphere with regard to energy and more importantly, temperature, is specific heat capacity not radiation. I back this up with real easily replicable experiments. NOT impossible to replicate post normal “thought experiments”.
Jeff you say above in reply to my: “Power v. energy: All Energy Flow Plans use the same description for energy in as for energy out, i.e. W/m². They even say “energy out equals energy in”
“I know, it’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine – even though I messed it up above 😉 Watts is a unit of power of course, not energy. Whether you get it or not, people misunderstand that point all the time.”
Why does it have to be people who misunderstand “that point” all the time? Is it “unthinkable that it could be something else” that is wrong all the time?
If I read W/m² I think Watts per square meter is what is meant by it.
Jeff, I would still like to know the scientific explanation/answer to my oft repeated question: How are gases like Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon warmed if they cannot absorb IR radiation?
O H Dahlsveen says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“Jeff, I would still like to know the scientific explanation/answer to my oft repeated question: How are gases like Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon warmed if they cannot absorb IR radiation?”
Well, who said they couldn’t? I see IR in the oxygen band! See fig 2. It sounds like you’ve been reading Will’s blog.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/radiative-physics-simplified-ii/
Anthony carried that one as well. One of the things I’ve done at tAV is to try and make things as simple as possible so I’ve made a few posts like this. BTW, Figure 2 of that post should convince every person on the planet that CO2 warming is real. What it shouldn’t do is convince people that it warming is big, dangerous, bad, slightly measurable, significant, or in any way not good. Those points are separate issues.
“Why does it have to be people who misunderstand “that point” all the time? Is it “unthinkable that it could be something else” that is wrong all the time?”
Well, as an optical engineer I’ve worked this math often, and were you to even slightly consider chucking this simple stuff out (as you suggest), you should chuck every incandescent light out of your window. I mean right out the window b/c it turns out that if the math is bad, incandescent lights must not function.
The Plank spectrum is the exact same math that you use to calculate the output from filaments that light your house. In addition, the absorption spectrum of gasses are also used all the time. How do you think people identify CO2 on distant worlds? Ever hear of a gas chromatograph? Emission lines are calculated the same way.
“If I read W/m² I think Watts per square meter is what is meant by it.”
Watts are power not energy, the measure is Joules per second – energy flow. Joules are energy, Joules per second are power. So when you say energy in Watts/meter^2, the term “energy” is incorrect. The Watt unit is actually power.
Thank you Jeff for what you posted on January 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm It is going to take me longer than a few hours to soak it all up. But it is in the middle of the night here where I am just now (02:00) so I shall have to answer it at some other time. As I have got to “hit the sack” now.
Perhaps Will is hard to understand and a little cryptic, BUT:
“Therefore the dominant factor in the atmosphere with regard to energy and more importantly, temperature, is specific heat capacity not radiation. I back this up with real easily replicable experiments. NOT impossible to replicate post normal “thought experiments”.
Maybe I’m a nut, like many thing, but I think he has a point here. It’s all about heat storage, not radiation cartoons (which doesn’t necessarily mean the cartoons are wrong, just misleading…
““Jeff, I would still like to know the scientific explanation/answer to my oft repeated question: How are gases like Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon warmed if they cannot absorb IR radiation?”
Well, who said they couldn’t? I see IR in the oxygen band! See fig 2. It sounds like you’ve been reading Will’s blog.”
WOW, now I’m gobsmacked again! Jeff, don’t you know ANYTHING about thermalization? ALL the atmosphere has to be warmed to preserve LTE, and for the non-IR active diatomic molecules, this happens via THERMALIZATION. Google it!
Jae,
Warmed relative to what? How warm?
The full quote should be:
“When a CO2 molecule absorbs energy in the form of light/IR, the energy will cause the CO2 molecule to vibrate faster (become hotter). But if that CO2 molecule is at the same time being forced into temperature equilibrium by the higher specific heat capacities of both O2 and N2 in which it is immersed at a ratio of more than 1200/1, the only thing the CO2 molecule can do is re-emit (becoming cooler).
Therefore the dominant factor in the atmosphere with regard to energy and more importantly, temperature, is specific heat capacity not radiation. I back this up with real easily replicable experiments. NOT impossible to replicate post normal “thought experiments”.
Another quote from my first post is also worth repeating here.
“The so called “Greenhouse Effect” is nothing more than a cheep parlour trick which utilises the complexities of atmospherics and fluid dynamics and most peoples inability to simultaneously consider all of the variables.”
That means all of us.
How many times have I read people saying in this thread (including Jeff Condon), well you have to accept the basic physics, if you can’t do that then blah blah blah?
Basic physics my arse!
Lets have a brief look at the basic physics of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis.
Or rather lets look at just a fraction of the “basic physics” which the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis fails to incorporate.
Such as:
The ideal gas law
Specific heat capacity
All three laws of thermodynamics
Conduction
Convection
Solar variability
Solar magnetism
Solar ionisation
Temporary di-pole moments
The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge, etc, etc.
Thats not to mention the lack of correlation between temperature and enormous levels of CO2 up to 7000 ppm in the historical record. Or the multitude of other climatic variables which are proven to effect global temperature yet have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of “Greenhouse Effect”.
I know I certainly don’t have all the answers, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is perfectly obvious to anyone that I am not a scientist. But one thing I know for sure is that if we do not consider every parameter involved, we can never fully understand the “basic physics” let alone the climate.
Those who support and promote the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis could not possibly be further from understanding “basic physics”.
The “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is NOT basic physics. It’s half baked physics. It’s incomplete physics. It’s dumbed down physics. It’s retarded physics. Above all the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is bullsh!t physics.
Of all those who think they understand the basic physics of the “Greenhouse Effect”, how many of you have actually read John Tyndall’s ” Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat”?
Not one I bet.
You will therefore be blissfully unaware that this work, from which the “basic physics” of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis originates, contains the classic structure of the “basic” confidence trick. Using as it does, the “Straw Man” device in the form of Professor Magnus, to convince the reader that Tyndall is correct in all of his fallacious assertions such that, Oxygen and Nitrogen are quote: “practically transparent radiant heat”. and his implication that CO2 is a heat trapping gas, among many other fallacies.
Don’t talk to me about the basic physics.
If increasing CO2 content causes increasing air temperature show it, with REAL replicable experiments. How hard can it be? After all, its just basic physics right?
To imply or actually state as many fools have, that you would need another planet, identical to our world but with double the CO2 concentrations in order to demonstrate the “Greenhouse Effect”, perfectly characterises the level of dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of its proponents.
Will,
You are the Cliff Claven of WUWT. 🙂
Will says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:25 am
“To imply or actually state as many fools have, that you would need another planet, identical to our world but with double the CO2 concentrations in order to demonstrate the “Greenhouse Effect”, perfectly characterises the level of dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of its proponents.”
Good grief, of course you don’t! Much simpler experiments that anyone can carry out are described on the internet – Google “greenhouse effect demonstration”.
The simple “vinegar and baking soda in a jar” experiment is described here: http://www.rmets.org/activities/schools/greenhouse-effect.php
There’s a nice video of a more sophisticated setup here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
Jeff
I have presented a sound logical argument as to why the “Greenhouse Effect” is bogus. I have given data backed by real replicable experiments.
Im at a loss to know what more I can do!
You claim the “Greenhouse Effect” is indeed real and you present, as a head post no less, an impossible to reproduce thought experiment, then make an ambiguous meaningless claim about CO2 IR absorption, quote:
“We know that CO2 absorbs certain outgoing wavelengths of light.”
and when someone disagrees with you, rather than supporting your statements with facts and data or even dare I say it, a real experiment, all you can do is say, “well if you can’t except the basic physics blah blah blah” and then resort to name calling.
Forget the name calling, lets see you with a real experiment please.
Steve
With regards to the examples of experiments you claim prove the “Greenhouse Effect” all I have to say is this.
The first link is to a written description of an experiment using baking soda to produce the CO2. I have tried many versions of his experiment and yet I get no warming bias in the container of CO2. All my results using baking soda have been consistent with the results I get using carbonated water.
See here: http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
As for the second link you have given it is to a short video produced by the BBC. Everyone knows the BBC are heavily invested in Carbon Credits. They have every motive to produce fraudulent science and this film is just a classic example of precisely that.
It is very interesting to me because this link you give is the remake of a News Night program that the BBC threw together in a knee-jerk reaction to my original experiment which I first uploaded on my website back on the 14 Dec 09.
The original is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
Notice the date, 17 Dec 09. The reason that they had to do a remake, the one in your link, is because even though in both they employ “the magic of TV”. In other words the cut the film and only show what they want you to see, in the first version that they hurriedly put together for this News Night program they actually committed fraud on national television.
If you watch the original and pay attention to the temperature of the air bottle you will see that it ends up being 1º C colder at the end of the test after apparently being heated for 10 minutes. So they had no choice but to make a second version which is one you have linked to, which incidentally still uses cuts in the footage and actually proves nothing.
So sorry, no cigar this time Steve, keep googling, you may just get lucky!
“I have presented a sound logical argument as to why the “Greenhouse Effect” is bogus. I have given data backed by real replicable experiments. ”
No you haven’t, you’ve used scientific words and concepts mixed together in a pattern which is so messed up,it’s completely indecipherable.
I’ll tell you what Will, who is so certain he’s proved science wrong. If you like, I’ll do a post on your spinonthat page linked above that got the approval of your friend. If I can’t find 10 distinct errors in the single post, I’ll apologize for comparing you to Cliff Claven.
This might be a stupid question, if it is an explanation of why would be welcome.
Is the IR in these models and thought experiments measured taking into account that not all IR is equal, that there is a range of temps in it?