Replicating Al Gore's Climate 101 video experiment shows that his "high school physics" could never work as advertised

This will be a top “sticky” post for a day or two. New stories will appear below this one.

Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.

First. as a refresher, here’s the Climate 101 video again:

I direct your attention to the 1 minute mark, lasting through 1:30, where the experiment is presented.

And here’s my critique of it: Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”

The most egregious faked presentation in that video was the scene with the split screen thermometers, edited to appear as if the temperature in the jar of elevated CO2 level was rising faster than the jar without elevated CO2 level.

It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.

This was proven beyond a doubt by the photoshop differencing technique used to compare each side of the split screen. With the exception of the moving thermometer fluid, both sides were identical.

difference process run at full resolution - click to enlarge

Exposing this lie to the viewers didn’t set well with some people, include the supposed “fairness” watchdogs over at Media Matters, who called the analysis a “waste of time”. Of course it’s only a “waste of time” when you prove their man Gore was faking the whole thing, otherwise they wouldn’t care. Personally I consider it a badge of honor for them to take notice because they usually reserve such vitriol for high profile news they don’t like, so apparently I have “arrived”.

The reason why I took so much time then to show this chicanery was Mr. Gore’s pronouncement in an interview the day the video aired.

His specific claim was:

“The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,” he said. “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics.” – Al Gore in an interview with MNN 9/14/2011

So easy a high school kid can do it. Right?

Bill Nye, in his narration at 0:48 in the video says:

You can replicate this effect yourself in a simple lab experiment, here’s how.

…and at 1:10 in the video Nye says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

So, I decided to find out if that was true and if anyone could really replicate that claim, or if this was just more stagecraft chicanery. I was betting that nobody on Gore’s production team actually did this experiment, or if they did do it, it wasn’t successful, because otherwise, why would they have to fake the results in post production?

The split screen video at 1:17, a screencap of which is a few paragraphs above shows a temperature difference of 2°F. Since Mr. Gore provided no other data, I’ll use that as the standard to meet for a successful experiment.

The first task is to get all the exact same equipment. Again, since Mr. Gore doesn’t provide anything other than the video, finding all of that took some significant effort and time. There’s no bill of materials to work with so I had to rely on finding each item from the visuals. While I found the cookie jars and oral thermometers early on, finding the lamp fixtures, the heat lamps for them, the CO2 tank and the CO2 tank valve proved to be more elusive. Surprisingly, the valve turned out to be the hardest of all items to locate, taking about two weeks from the time I started searching to the time I had located it, ordered it and it arrived. The reason? It isn’t called a valve, but rather a “In-Line On/Off Air Adapter”. Finding the terminology was half the battle. Another surprise was finding that the heat lamps and fixtures were for lizards and terrariums and not some general purpose use. Fortunately the fixtures and lamps were sold together by the same company. While the fixtures supported up to 150 watts, Mr. Gore made no specification on bulb type or wattage, so I chose the middle of the road 100 watt bulbs from the 50, 100, and 150 watt choices available.

I believe that I have done due diligence (as much as possible given no instructions from Gore) and located all the original equipment to accurately replicate the experiment as it was presented. Here’s the bill of materials and links to suppliers needed to replicate Al Gore’s experiment as it is shown in the Climate 101 video:



QTY 2 Anchor Hocking Cookie Jar with Lid

QTY2 Geratherm Oral Thermometer Non-Mercury

QTY 2 Globe Coin Bank

QTY 2 Fluker`s Repta Clamp-Lamp with Ceramic Sockets for Terrariums (max 150 watts, 8 1/2 Inch Bulb)

QTY2 Zoo Med Red Infrared Heat Lamp 100W

QTY1 Empire – Pure Energy – Aluminum Co2 Tank – 20 oz

QTY 1 RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter

QTY 1 flexible clear plastic hose, 48″ in length, from local Lowes hardware to fit RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter above.


Additionally, since Mr. Gore never actually proved that CO2 had been released from the CO2 paintball tank into one of the jars, I ordered a portable CO2 meter for just that purpose:

It has a CO2 metering accuracy of: ± 50ppm ±5% reading value. While not laboratory grade, it works well enough to prove the existence of elevated CO2 concentrations in one of the jars. It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.

carbon dioxide temperature humidity monitorData Sheet


Once I got all of the equipment in, the job was to do some testing to make sure it all worked. I also wanted to be sure the two oral thermometers were calibrated such they read identically. For that, I prepared a water bath to conduct that experiment.

CAVEAT: For those that value form over substance, yes these are not slick professionally edited videos like Mr. Gore presented. They aren’t intended to be. They ARE intended to be a complete, accurate, and most importantly unedited record of the experimental work I performed. Bear in mind that while Mr. Gore has million$ to hire professional studios and editors, all I have is a consumer grade video camera, my office and my wits. If I were still working in broadcast television, you can bet I would have done this in the TV studio.


STEP 1 Calibrate the Oral Thermometers

Here’s my first video showing how I calibrated the oral thermometers, which is very important if you want to have an accurate experimental result.

Note that the two thermometers read 98.1°F at the conclusion of the test, as shown in this screencap from my video @ about 5:35:

STEP 2 Calibrate the Infrared Thermometer

Since I plan to make use of an electronic Infrared thermometer in these experiments, I decided to calibrate it against the water bath also. Some folks may see this as unnecessary, since it is pre-calibrated, but I decided to do it anyway. It makes for interesting viewing


STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using  the Infrared Thermometer

The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.

Image from:
Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.

By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid, but not only will I show the problem of the experimental setup being flawed, I’ll go to full on replication.

Using the warm water bath and the infrared thermometer, it becomes easy to demonstrate this effect.

Since Mr. Gore’s experiment used infrared heat lamps illuminating two glass jars, I decided to test that as well:


STEP 4 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 10 minutes

At 1:10 in the Climate 101 video narrator Bill Nye the science guy says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

Since this is “simple high school physics” according to Mr. Gore, this should be a cinch to replicate. I took a “within minutes” from the narration to be just that, so I tried an experiment with 10 minutes of duration. I also explain the experimental setup and using the CO2 meter prove that CO2 is in fact injected into Jar “B”. My apologies for the rambling dialog, which wasn’t scripted, but explained as I went along. And, the camera work is one-handed while I’m speaking and setting up the experiment, so what it lacks in production quality it makes up in reality.

You’ll note that after 10 minutes, it appears there was no change in either thermometer. Also, remember these are ORAL thermometers, which hold the reading (so you can take it out of your mouth and hand it to mom and ask “can I stay home from school today”?). So for anyone concerned about the length of time after I turned off the lamps, don’t be. In order to reset the thermometers you have to shake them to force the liquid back down into the bulb.

Here’s the screencaps of the two thermometer readings from Jar A and B:

Clearly, 10 minutes isn’t enough time for the experiment to work. So let’s scratch off the idea from narration of “a few minutes” and go for a longer period:

RESULT: No change, no difference in temperature. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video. Inconclusive.


STEP 5 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 30 minutes

Ok, identical setup as before, the only difference is time, the experiment runs 30 minutes long. I’ve added a digital timer you can watch as the experiment progresses.

And here are the screencaps from the video above of the results:

RESULT: slight rise and difference in temperature 97.4°F for Jar “A” Air, and 97.2°F for Jar “B” CO2. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video.


STEP 6 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment, using digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment, I’m substituting the liquid in glass oral thermometers with some small self contained battery powered digital logging thermometers with LCD displays.

This model:

Details here

Specification Sheet / Manual

USB-2-LCD+ Temperature Datalogger

I used two identical units in the experiment replication:

And here are the results graphed by the application that comes with the datalogger. Red is Temperature, Blue is Humidity, Green is dewpoint

The graphs are automatically different vertical scales and thus can be a bit confusing, so I’ve take the raw data for each and graphed temperature only:

After watching my own video, I was concerned that maybe I was getting a bit of a direct line of the visible portion of the heat lamp into the sensor housing onto the thermistor, since they were turned on their side. So I ran the experiment again with the dataloggers mounted vertically in paper cups to ensure the thermistors were shielded from any direct radiation at any wavelength. See this video:

Both runs of the USB datalogger are graphed together below:


Run 1 slight rise and difference in temperature 43.5°C for Jar “A” Air with Brief pulse to 44°C , and 43.0°C for Jar “B” CO2.

Run 2 had an ended with a 1°C difference, with plain air in Jar A being warmer than Jar “B with CO2.

Jar “A” Air temperature led Jar “B” CO2 during the entire experiment on both runs

The datalogger output files are available here:

JarA Air only run1.txt  JarB CO2 run1.txt

JarA Air only run2.txt JarB CO2 run2.txt


STEP 7 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using a high resolution NIST calibrated digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment I use a high resolution (0.1F resolution) and NIST calibrated data logger with calibrated probes. Data was collected over my LAN to special software. This is the datalogger model:

Data sheet: Model E Series And the software used to log data is described here

Here’s the experiment:

I had to spend a lot of time waiting for the Jar “B” probe to come to parity with Jar “A” due to the cooling effect of the CO2 I introduced. As we all know, when a gas expands it cools, and that’s exactly what happens to CO2 released under pressure. You can see the effect early in the flat area of the graph below.

Here’s the end result screencap real-time graphing software used in the experiment, click the image to expand the graph full size.


Peak value Jar A with air  was at 18:04 117.3°F

Peak value Jar B with CO2 was at 18:04 116.7°F

Once again, air led CO2 through the entire experiment.

Note that I allowed this experiment to go through a cool down after I turned off the Infrared heat lamps, which is the slope after the peak. Interestingly, while Jar “A” (probe1 in green) with Air, led Jar “B” (Probe 2 in red) with CO2, the positions reversed shortly after the lamps turned off.

The CO2 filled jar was now losing heat slower than the plain air jar, even though plain air Jar “A” had warmed slightly faster than the CO2 Jar “B”.

Here’s the datalogger output files for each probe:

Climate101-replication-Probe01-(JarA – Air).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe02-(JarB – CO2).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe03-(Ambient Air).csv

What could explain this reversal after the lamps were turned off? The answer is here at the Engineer’s Edge in the form of this table:

Heat Transfer Table of Content

This chart gives the thermal conductivity of gases as a function of temperature.

Unless otherwise noted, the values refer to a pressure of 100 kPa (1 bar) or to the saturation vapor pressure if that is less than 100 kPa.

The notation P = 0 indicates the low pressure limiting value is given. In general, the P = 0 and P = 100 kPa values differ by less than 1%.

Units are milliwatts per meter kelvin.

Note the values for Air and for CO2 that I highlighted in the 300K column. 300K is 80.3°F.

Air is a better conductor of heat than CO2.


So, here is what I think is going on with Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment.

  1. As we know, the Climate101 video used infrared heat lamps
  2. The glass cookie jars chosen don’t allow the full measure of infrared from the lamps to enter the center of the jar and affect the gas. I showed this two different ways with the infrared camera in videos above.
  3. During the experiments, I showed the glass jars heating up using the infrared camera. Clearly they were absorbing the infrared energy from the lamps.
  4. The gases inside the jars, air and pure CO2 thus had to be heated by secondary heat emission from the glass as it was being heated. They were not absorbing infrared from the lamps, but rather heat from contact with the glass.
  5. Per the engineering table, air is a better conductor of heat than pure CO2, so it warms faster, and when the lamps are turned off, it cools faster.
  6. The difference value of 2°F shown in the Climate 101 video split screen was never met in any of the experiments I performed.
  7. The condition stated in the Climate 101 video of “Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.” was not met in any of the experiments I performed. In fact it was exactly the opposite. Air consistently warmed faster than CO2.
  8. Thus, the experiment as designed by Mr. Gore does not show the greenhouse effect as we know it in our atmosphere, it does show how heat transfer works and differences in heat transfer rates with different substances, but nothing else.

Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment is falsified, and could not work given the equipment he specified. If they actually tried to perform the experiment themselves, perhaps this is why they had to resort to stagecraft in the studio to fake the temperature rise on the split screen thermometers.

The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. The video as presented, is not only faked in post production, the premise is also false and could never work with the equipment they demonstrated. Even with superior measurement equipment it doesn’t work, but more importantly, it couldn’t work as advertised.

The design failure was the glass cookie jar combined with infrared heat lamps.

Gore FAIL.


UPDATE: 4PM PST Some commenters are taking away far more than intended from this essay. Therefore I am repeating this caveat I posted in my first essay where I concentrated on the video editing and stagecraft issues:

I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.

No broader take away (other than the experiment was faked and fails) was intended, expressed or implied – Anthony

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 18, 2011 11:28 pm

Well it is complicated after all.

October 18, 2011 11:29 pm

Nye FAIL too.

October 18, 2011 11:31 pm

Very sweet, Anthony, an epic deconstruction. One of the reasons I write for this site is that you are not only writing about this stuff. You are doing original scientific experiments and analyses.
My congratulations,

October 18, 2011 11:32 pm

good work.

October 18, 2011 11:37 pm

So basically what you discovered is that had Gore and Nye performed this experiment, they would have “proven” CO2 is a cooling agent in the atmosphere. Of course we know CO2 does not do that unless it displaces Water Vapor or Methane in the atmosphere.

October 18, 2011 11:39 pm

…so are there no broadcast standard authorities to complain to over there???
Brillian detective work – way to go – better than any dog with a bone

Doede Rensema
October 18, 2011 11:49 pm

Hi Anthony,
Great post again!
I think I found a tiny mistake, in the conclusions you state in point 5 that air warms faster and cools slower, shouldn’t that be cools faster?

Yup, typo, fixed, thanks. – Anthony

October 18, 2011 11:50 pm

Oh ohh…. I can clearly see an A in a jar labled

October 18, 2011 11:51 pm

This is emblematic of AGW in a nutshell, a flawed theory based on shoddy “science”, presented as fact, but a fraud in reality.

October 18, 2011 11:51 pm

Blast!!!! B

Ben M
October 18, 2011 11:54 pm

you should invite Gore to either tell you what you’re missing from the experiment, or to put up the raw footage fom his experiment.

October 18, 2011 11:55 pm

Anthony your dedication to the subject matter and thoroughness of your approach is a credit to yourself and an example to the world at large. This is real science done in the correct way.

October 18, 2011 11:57 pm

Now I see…. the thermometer FROM JAR B is in front of jar A. Sorry for my confusion.

Stuart Huggett
October 18, 2011 11:57 pm

Falsification – one of my favourite words! Very well done Anthony. Thank God you are doing these things – most of the rest of the ‘scientific community seems dumbstruck by its devotion to the faith…

October 18, 2011 11:58 pm

This shows Nye is a fraud too.
REPLY: Not necessarily, he may have been given a voice over script to read in a studio in Los Angeles and the audio sent out. The video was shot in Brooklyn. He may have assumed that due diligence was being done by Gore and his video producers. Maybe somebody can bring this to Nye’s attention and we can get the full story as to whether he had any hand in the experiment or simply served as a voice over agent – Anthony

October 18, 2011 11:59 pm

Well done, Anthony! Amazing. Your test in your “laboratory” (home)
In spite of such clear scientific evidence, which I am sure anyone can easily repeat in a college- or university lab. environment, I continue to be amazed why people keep on believing the lie that CO2 causes warming of the planet.
Clearly you have exposed Al Gore again.
I have always said that the closed box experiment is not really valid, as,
1) there is some warming caused by the CO2, by re-radiation of earth light, 14-16 um
2) there is some cooling caused by the CO2, by re-radiation of sun light, @various wavelengths, between 0-5 um.
3) there is some cooling caused by the CO2 by taking part in the photosynthesis (plants and trees need warmth to grow )
4) there is some warming happening again due to increased vegetation (heat being trapped), which could be partly due to 1) human intervention, 2) increased CO2.
The only way to determine what the net effect is of the increase in CO2 is looking at historical weather data as I have done and by recording the ratio’s of the 3 M’s….Maxima-Means-Minima: My current sample shows that the ratio of these is 9:3:1,
meaning there is no”entrapment of heat due to an increase in GHG’s. It is the increase in maxima pushing up the average temps. + a small % of that extra being trapped by additional vegetation.
Would also only take a few stats classes of students at university to copy my work (to check) and do a lot more.
Surely, it is not us who is in denial, it is the mad world and our educational institutions who are in denial. Anthony, you can bring a horse to the water, but we cannot make him drink.
Strongly recommended: a new book exposing the dreadful IPCC and its perversion of science. The author, Donna Laframboise, compares the IPCC with a “Delinquent Teenager”, spoiled, indulged, never questioned, and so corrupted. It’s only 100 pages long but gives plenty of info’ as to what has gone wrong with the IPCC. She explains that although the politicians and big media fawn before it as the authoritative voice of science, it is actually just venal junkscience.

October 19, 2011 12:02 am

Now will someone explain to Mythbusters why their experiment sucked and was no better than the Gore fraud.

October 19, 2011 12:03 am

Good to see a proper experiment done.
I saddens me that media manipulate everything so much and this help politicians push their view of the world.
This should be a warning to us all as this is not just a leftwing thing it was done both in Germany and Russia in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
We need to be on our guard as the world is again entering a economic climate like the 1930’s which may bring about the rise of demagogues both on the left and the right (from a UK point of view this looks like this is already happening in the US with both left and right which is very sad and worrying). You have a great country and you were so fortunate to have Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930’s as he guided the ship through troubled waters and the rise of the US after the WWII to stand up to Soviet aggression is a testament to how great a president he was, as he laid the foundation (my family was directly effected by soviet expansion which kept us apart for 40 years and I never met my paternal grandparents as they died in a siberian concentration camp).
Keep your eyes wide open and do not be manipulated by leftwing or rightwing propaganda we are the last of the literal generations, but our Achilles heel is propaganda be very aware of how easily you can be taken in, every time you see something you need to ask yourself does this agree with what I know to be a fact or does it appeal to something that i want/fear. If it is the want/fear beware you are being potentially manipulated (as I was in the early 2000’s about AGW then I did the calculations as shown in the experiment above and realised it was wrong, someone pushing their own agenda on me by propaganda preying on my desire not to damage the world around me). You have been warned 😮

October 19, 2011 12:06 am

There was no reason for Gore to verify it in the real world by actually doing the experiment. The science was already settled.

October 19, 2011 12:07 am

What I would do, is get both jars going with air first, and then see if they are the same temp. Adjust the distance from the heat source to make sure they both get the same temp (in the jar). It doesn’t matter if they are different distances, it’s the temp that your measuring. Then add satanic gas to B without moving anything. If you did this then you have ruled out most of the experiemental error.
If you didn’t, it doesn’t really matter. Knows all, Sees all. All hail the Goricle.

Bill Jamison
October 19, 2011 12:09 am

Has anyone tried asking Bill Nye for information regarding how to exactly replicate the experiment? It seems like that would be a good first step. If it’s a valid experiment then it should be easily reproducible given clear instructions. Obviously it wasn’t reproducible at all here.

Jeff D
October 19, 2011 12:09 am

I curse you Anthony, I was just heading off to bed and now 45 minutes later I might be able to do just that.
Well done!!
Gore was right a simple home experiment can prove him opps wrong? lol
Wish I had an email to Bill Nye, he really needs to see this.

October 19, 2011 12:09 am

Good work, Inspector Watts! Brilliant! Present this to the jury and you’ve got a conviction.
I’m sure your results will be judged by a jury of your peers in the following comments.
And remember, Gore made it all possible!

October 19, 2011 12:10 am

Not only did you prove Al Gore to be a fake, you also ‘proved’ CO2 causes cooling! 🙂

Michael Wassil
October 19, 2011 12:12 am

Why don’t you send this to the “team”. They seem to be labouring under some misconceptions as well. Plus, it would do them good to see how real scientific experiments are done. I think they all probably skipped lab while in school.

October 19, 2011 12:14 am

First, I say hats off to Anthony for doing and demonstrating to the usual trolls here what to expect from real lab work. For example: I am curious if Gore et al took the time to establish equality between the two jars (obvious answer: NO) Anthony: “I had to spend a lot of time waiting for the Jar “B” probe to come to parity with Jar “A” due to the cooling effect of the CO2 I introduced.”
Secondly, in tooting my own horn, recall in the original post here, I suspected that in doing such an experiment there would be no difference in the temperature in the two jars.
Thirdly, we all performed experiments in lab that were both qualitative and quantitative; none of which were as low-base as the Gorelatory example of his style of high school science.
Finally, I find it interesting that you actually took the time to replicate the Gore blasphemy and commend you for, as so well put by Willis, in “deconstructing” such garbage. Gratitude abounds.

October 19, 2011 12:19 am

“The way an actual greenhouse works is by tapping infrared radiation. ”
No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.

Jeff D
October 19, 2011 12:22 am

I agree that the CO2 bottle for the untrained is dangerous but if people use the baking soda / vinegar version of creating CO2 it will increase the humidity in the container which could skew the test. It is possible that the high humidity in the B jar will conduct heat better and change the results. If you have the time and the gear still laying around I would love to see that experiment as well.

October 19, 2011 12:30 am

So while showing how this “experiment” was a complete farce, you brought up a question for me.
If an increased concetration of CO₂ acts as an insulator by slowing the cooling of an air mixture, wouldn’t this slow nighttime cooling, which would typically lead to a higher low temp for the day? Thus leading to the thought process of a warmer low temperature for each day even with the same high temps could be a factor to how the average temp for a month/year could be officially going up.
REPLY: No, remember the CO2 in the jar is saturation, not at 390ppm like our atmosphere, big difference. The heat tables are for saturation at sea level at 300 kelvin – Anthony

October 19, 2011 12:31 am

Good work.
I remember the experiment conducted to demonstrate the Steve Goddard/co2 claims a couple of years back.
I wonder if there are any more simple 101 type experiments out there waiting to be done-they are a demonstration of observable sxience in action as well as a graphic deconstruction of high profile claims.

October 19, 2011 12:32 am

The comments on Media Matters are now even more delicious, it is almost as though the delay in announcing the results of repeating the experiment was there to give them enough rope, and now it is time to reel them in. Anyone volunteer to go over there and break the news to them?

Bob the swiss
October 19, 2011 12:32 am

Gore is a [snip we don’t like people calling us that name, let’s not reciprocate -Anthony]

Brian H
October 19, 2011 12:35 am

Edit (typo); “In fcat it was exactly the opposite.”
I wonder how the experiment would have gone if plexiglass(?) or suitable IR-transparent jars or containers were used.
REPLY: Already fixed, refresh – A

John Wright
October 19, 2011 12:48 am

October 19, 2011 at 12:03 am
I’d be interested to know what you mean exactly by “literal” generations. (Perhaps because I’m part of it)

October 19, 2011 12:48 am


Ian Macmillan
October 19, 2011 12:50 am

Its good to see a valid scientific experiment done without massive laboratory facilities, and which certainly shows the flaws in the faked Gore demonstration.
However who would ever take any notice of so-called science done by a evil denier over that performed by a Famous Nobel Prize winner. Phooi!

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 19, 2011 12:55 am

Typo, Step 3:
The way an actual greenhouse works is by tapping infrared radiation.
BTW, Great job.
REPLY: Typo fixed thanks – A

October 19, 2011 12:57 am

I dont know what to say Anthony, first you keep track of the blog, writings, science, temperature stations, and my oh my, you also perform practical tests in your home!!
Now this is the spirit of a true scientist!
And then youwrite:
“if they did do it, it wasn’t successful, because otherwise, why would they have to fake the results in post production”
Yes, spot on.
This made my day, thankyou 🙂

October 19, 2011 1:05 am

I’m looking at the first 2 graphs of temp vs humidity vs dewpoint. Interesting observations w/ regards to dew point and relative humidity between A and B. I need to think about this for a while. The CO2 replaced some of the air / H2O at start. Why the bumps in humidity and dewpoint near end?
What is the vertical lavindar colored line in A?
You should seriously apply for a grant to replicate your work on a bigger scale using your technique. Perhaps a pair of 8x8x8 glass ‘houses’ set outside in a field and use natural sunlight. Vary CO2 levels and H2O contents. This could possibly result in some very scientific results to better understand the principles of atmospheric phenomenon.
You should be the one to perform this as apparantly none of the so called ‘climate scientist’ view anything other than a cookie jar (pun intended).

Lid removal at the end and moving dataloggers to USB port caused the bumps, can’t stop it until you connect – Anthony

October 19, 2011 1:06 am

Not only does Gore FAIL but Gore FUDGES, FABRICATES, LIES and DECEIVES.
Much as he did in his Inconvenient Lies.
Surely he has broken some law?

Peter Plail
October 19, 2011 1:12 am

Anthony, do you have any links with local schools? Could they be persuaded to undertake the experiments for themselves using your equipment (so no cost to the school). Mr Gore suggests that it is a simple enough experiment and I am sure it would be a valuable contribution to the children’s science (or should that be politics) curriculum.
Now, if you could persuade your local TV or press to cover it too………..

October 19, 2011 1:14 am

Anthony, I was blown away by your dedication and attention to detail in the experiment. I loved the thoroughness of your approach. It is a credit to yourself and an example to the world at large on how to conduct an experimental check of scientific statements. What a pleasure it is to see some real science done in the correct way at last. How delightful an outcome it was.
Nicholas Tesdorf

UK Sceptic
October 19, 2011 1:22 am

I give your series of recreated Gore Lies Climate 101 experiments an F – for falsified!
Well done Anthony.

Steve C
October 19, 2011 1:25 am

Within minutes (well, apart from tracking down some pretty “non-standard” apparatus …), you have confirmed with careful experimentation what we suspected all along … and, in the spirit of Feynman, listed what you felt were weaknesses so that others can better understand. Good work, even in replicating a shoddy and faked “experiment”.
Y’know, it occurs to me that, if only for the time she lets you spend on all this, Mrs. W. must be a strong contender for sainthood.

October 19, 2011 1:32 am

Your do great work. You are a hero of mine. Your attention to detail and dedication to checking on the experiment in the Al Gore video is an example of your exceptionalism. Thank you.
You have suggested Mr Nye may have not have known he was fronting for a staged experiment. I wonder if Al Gore may also having been only presenting from a script written by others. I cannot see him going through the process of doing the experiment himself. Of course, ignorance is no excuse and would only further diminish his credibility.

October 19, 2011 1:37 am

FDR was rather a crook. threatened the Supreme Court when he couldn’t get his way(tried to add 5 new justices iirc) and had a general disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. Sound familiar?
Btw i will soon be peddling my own “Climate 101” series of videos. I am neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist but that doesn’t appear to matter anyway. I’m sure i will be taken quite seriously by the media and scientific community as long as i spout the party line. 🙂

October 19, 2011 1:41 am

If he thinks it’s millions of degrees hotter just meteres below the planet’s crust, why would you trust him when he proclaims “It’s high school physics!”???

October 19, 2011 1:46 am

Full marks for comprehensively demolishing Al Gore’s experiment.
I suggest, however that the interpretation of the heating and cooling rates depends more on the relative thermal capacities of air and CO2 rather than their relative thermal conductivities.

October 19, 2011 1:49 am

These are only two little words but they are offered with some emotion – thank you.

October 19, 2011 1:56 am

The BBC version of this experiment used two empty 2L plastic pop bottles, and used an ordinary 100W incandescent light as the heat source. Plastic of course behaves differently from glass, and using a source close to sunlight is better than IR heat lamps.
I wonder why Al Gore’s team specifically chose to get these elements of the experiment wrong?

John Marshall
October 19, 2011 1:58 am

Congrats. Anthony, proof, if proof were needed, that Gore is no scientist.
This also shows that CO2 is not an IR reactive gas as alarmists claim and goes some way to disprove the GHG theory.

October 19, 2011 2:04 am

This is just so sweet!
Perhaps the problem is that Mr Gore really does think that it is just science 101. That is why he goes astray…. But then again, he KNEW the experiment was fabricated.
I’m beginning to think that he is really just another charlatan showman desperately ‘scratching a living’ from the whole AGW thing ….. But then again, he MAKES SO MUCH out of it.
Whatever, if you knowingly falisfy something but present it as genuine you are very close to fraud.

October 19, 2011 2:08 am

Well done sir. Surely what Mr Gore has done is not just falsification but illegal?

October 19, 2011 2:15 am

Damn and double damn these hypocritical cheats.
Excellent job Anthony. Do you think the results would have been different without the lids on the cookie jars?

George Lawson
October 19, 2011 2:17 am

Oustanding work again Mr. Watts. As it is such a vital rubbishing once again of all Al Gore stands for, are you going to put a press release out on your findings to all the pro. AGW media such as the BBC, NYT. Washington Post etc. to see how they re-act?

October 19, 2011 2:17 am

Anthony, what I Iike best about your experiment is that you put it out there for all to see, and in this forum openly invite questions about it? Mmmmm now who could learn from this?

October 19, 2011 2:23 am

I also wonder why nobody ever has taken Al Gore to a court of law.
Clearly his advice is misleading large segments of the population. Is that not illegal?

October 19, 2011 2:23 am

I think this can/should develop into a challenge. Can ANYONE demonstrate (with specific details) exactly how it IS possible to re-create the orginal claimed results (I mean the Al Gore demo results) and, if so, give exact data as per standard scientific rigor on how to replicate the results elsewhere (as per Anthony’s description of his setup).
After all, in science it is the ability to demonstrate replication that is the core of scientific proof.
So just how settled is this piece of high school science? Prove it!

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 19, 2011 2:24 am

Caught with his hands in the cookie jar? Al Gore, shame on you! Stealing candy from babies again! (the silence is deafening)

October 19, 2011 2:27 am

‘Nullius in verba’

Claude Harvey
October 19, 2011 2:31 am

You are one world-class “bulldog”, Mr. Watts! Fluffy poodles beware.

October 19, 2011 2:32 am

REPLY: Not necessarily, he [the science guy] may have been given a voice over script to read in a studio in Los Angeles and the audio sent out.
JK But he put his name on it, so “he owns it”. He should immediately disclaim this fraud.

October 19, 2011 2:32 am

Watt a wonderful post!

October 19, 2011 2:44 am

Has this experment ever been done using either something that mimics natural sunlight? Or even using sunlight itself?
Surely that would be the best way to test the “simple high school pysics”?

Allan M
October 19, 2011 2:45 am

Well falsified, Sir.
At the moment, I’m wading through Popper’s ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery,’ so this is quite apt.
You could have made it easier by getting Kenji to operate the camera, after all, he is a (concerned) scientist, and six hand equivalents are better than two.

October 19, 2011 2:46 am

Absolutely brilliant work Anthony. If there were Nobel’s given for Science Blogs, and assuming they had more value than the Obama/Gore prizes, you would be getting one.
I think Foster Grant Tamino should be try to replicate the Gore experiment now. And be meticulous as you were.

October 19, 2011 2:47 am

Nice, very nice, Anthony. The “step beyond” with the data logger was really good. Thank you.
Now that you are done with the cookie jars, I suggest you use them in another experiment. Fill one of the jars with chocolate chip cookies and the other with pecan shortbread cookies and see which jar empties the fastest. Repeat the experiment several times until you have enough data points for a valid statistical analysis. (There may be wagering here on the outcome!)
You might want to skip the video so as not to influence the outcome of the experiment; Cookie-nabbers “Caught on Tape” and all that.

October 19, 2011 2:53 am

Anthony, we see the results of your experiment using real science. Can you please repeat the experiment using settled science?

October 19, 2011 2:58 am

What a hoot. Nye and Gore can’t even do high school physics. ROFL. :p

View from the Solent
October 19, 2011 2:59 am

I didn’t waste time looking at the Goreathon and I don’t know your US law, but if donations were solicited by the former, isn’t that fraud?

October 19, 2011 3:00 am

@ Juraj V.

No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.

Yes, as I and others have also brought up, this should be a major topic.
Like Trenberth’s missing heat in the ocean which “back radiation” supposedly is being absorbed by the oceans, the hot spot in the lower/mid tropical troposphere as predicted by AGW “theory” by “trapping heat” is missing too. Observations trump theory every time, and I suggest despite being told it is about basic physics, in reality it is figuring out how the atmosphere behaves in the real world.

October 19, 2011 3:00 am

I was a little confused by Gore’s original “experiment” as they shone IR light onto glass vessels, and it is well known that ordinary glas contains residual H2O, so how the IR gets into the glass in the first place is a good question.
Very, very nice and utter demolition, Anthony!

October 19, 2011 3:00 am

Peter Plail says:”Anthony, do you have any links with local schools? Could they be persuaded to undertake the experiments for themselves using your equipment (so no cost to the school). Mr Gore suggests that it is a simple enough experiment and I am sure it would be a valuable contribution to the children’s science (or should that be politics) curriculum.
Now, if you could persuade your local TV or press to cover it too………..

Not just Anthony. Please, everyone here who is able to contact their local school’s science/physics teacher, do so. It should be a very interesting and instructive exercise for the students. Obviously they would have to set up their own equipment not use Anthony’s, but that’s how it should be. (And this being a proper scientific experiment, the results might be different too …).
It wouldn’t be the first time a valuable test was conducted by schoolchildren. I am aware of two at least –
(1) Erasto B Mpemba, a Tanzanian schoolboy, had a scientific phenomenon named after him – the Mpemba effect.
(2) Two NZ schoolgirls, Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo, tested Ribena (a drink marketed as rich in vitamin C) and found that it contained almost no vitamin C. The makers of Ribena were subsequently fined NZ$227,500 ($163,700) for misleading advertising.
And Australians will no doubt be aware of P J Nicholson, the schoolboy expert on wombats.
This CO2 test could give some great publicity for any school that takes it up.

Chris Wright
October 19, 2011 3:02 am

Brilliant work! If this experiment fails to show the expected warming it’s not surprising Gore had to resort to fraud. In the AGW world that seems to be standard practice. But it does suggest two obvious questions:
1. The conventional wisdom is that a doubling of CO2 leads to approximately a one degree Celsius rise. Using this theory, what rise in temperature would be expected in this experiment?
2. Are there any peer-reviewed laboratory experiments that confirm the theory? And, if so, how do they stand up to sceptical review?
Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that CO2 does not in fact cause any warming?
As I think others mentioned, this demonstration really needs to include control experiments: one with air in both containers and one with CO2 in both containers.

Steve R
October 19, 2011 3:05 am

How hard do you think it would be to keep a somewhat steady CO2 concentration in the jars using the general apparatus you used. My daughter was thinking of growing some seedlings simultaneously under several ranges of CO2 concentrations. Also, can anyone think of a way to scavenge the small amount of atmosheric co2 down to zero, for experimental control?

October 19, 2011 3:07 am

Well done Anthony! I do hope some MSM journo takes this up.
Ronaldo says:
October 19, 2011 at 1:46 am
Full marks for comprehensively demolishing Al Gore’s experiment.
I suggest, however that the interpretation of the heating and cooling rates depends more on the relative thermal capacities of air and CO2 rather than their relative thermal conductivities.

I was, still am, trying to understand the results relative to capacities – would the greater drop in humidity in the Air jar be enough to override CO2’s lower?

October 19, 2011 3:16 am

Googling to see how widely the “high school physics” meme has been used, I came across this 2009 forum post by a chemical engineer who helped his son to run a variety of GHG experiments posted by NASA, PBS, etc. They were unable to replicate the stated results for any of them:
These call for soda bottles and plastic bags instead of glass containers, and the NASA version uses the sun as a heat source (without specifying how the sun’s shortwave radiation gets turned into the longwave that is supposedly being trapped by CO2), but otherwise they are similar to Gore’s setup. Do soda bottles also block infrared, or are there still more flaws in these high school experiments?
According to Wikipedia, standard 2-liter soda bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. Searching for the IR absorption spectrum of polyetheylene terephthalate, I found this 1959 study by Liang and Krimm:
Their p. 556 has an IR absorption graph that shows several bands of very low transmission and quite a few of about 80% transmission, with the average being about 60%, so at the very least a workable experimental procedure would have to specify a heat source that emits IR in a relatively high transmission band. Even then, the remaining 20% absorption would introduce the contact warming effects Anthony found in the case of the glass containers, which work to obscure the heat-trapping effects that the experiment is trying to reveal. This may be why the chemical engineer, who insists that his lab technique is up to snuff, could not get any consistent results.
Looks like maybe it is not just Al Gore that is misrepresenting the actual results of these high school experiments, but a whole raft of supposed educators. If so, it implicates our entire educational system. How many thousands of times have students tried and failed to replicate the stated experimental results without these failures ever managing to emerge as a challenge challenge to those results? The scandal here could really be huge.

arthur clapham
October 19, 2011 3:18 am

Well done Anthony, reminds me of a terrier with a rat, congratulations.

October 19, 2011 3:18 am

Wonderful! I admire your dedication.
To those who mentioned the Mythbusters episode: Did they use IR-transparent containers? (Plexiglass?)

October 19, 2011 3:30 am

The comments at MediaMatters are priceless ..
Not one of them getting it, while all patying each other’s backs for being so much smarter than ‘the others’

October 19, 2011 3:33 am

I’m missing just one thing in this article:
How to do it right.
Because we all now greenhouse effect is real. The fact that Gore’s video is fake does not change that.
Of course you can’t use glass jars and infrared light. But I really wonder what would it take to do this experiment correctly using affordable tools.

October 19, 2011 3:42 am

This thing is this: Gore need not worry about this debunking since this goes no place. Those of us willing to look at all the evidence have already seen how disingenuous Mr. Gore is, but what about the 7 billion people on the planet that will not see this post? This reminds me of the Newspaper Headline on page one above the fold: “Smith shoots Jones!” and the retraction two weeks later on page 17C that no one reads.
I thank Mr. Watts for posting this and it is wonderful; but I get so discouraged when cAWG gets debunked over and over and over and over — and we still see so many think it is true.

October 19, 2011 3:48 am

Anthony – You say “STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using the Infrared Thermometer
The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”
That’s false as the primary mechanism, and has been known to be false for over 100 years. You could replace all the panes with a material that is permeable to IR and the result is almost identical. The greenhouse works by stopping convection with the atmosphere. See my old 2008 post about this here:
Here I pointed out that
“Such an idea was debunked a hundred years ago by R.W Wood in his Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse, published in the Philosophical Magazine (1909). Wood wrote
‘There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.’
By experiment, Wood demonstrated that the temperatures in greenhouses are barely affected when glass is replaced by material transparent to visible light that is transparent to infrared radiation as well. He concludes
‘This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.’
Greenhouses do not work by reflecting, trapping or re-radiating infrared radiation but by preventing the escape of warm air.”
Also, the post shows that schoolkids in England are expected to do this experiment. The relevant page on the Royal Society of Chemistry website is here:
But they use plastic bottles and incandescent lights, and, most tellingly, one bottle filled with CO2, i.e. hundreds of thousands of ppm, not hundreds of ppm.
As I point out in my post, even the Royal Society of Chemistry don’t understand how a greenhouse works.

October 19, 2011 3:50 am

jamie says:
Has this experment ever been done using either something that mimics natural sunlight? Or even using sunlight itself?
mmmm….well, I think what actually mean, is earth light. It is the earth-shine that is causing the warming that is alleged by Gore and Hansen and them?
I have commented on the various factors to be considered by increased CO2 here:
and concluded that a closed box experiment can never work….
I don’t think it is possible – and I have thought about it – to do a valid experiment that takes everything into account. The best way I can think of, is to do the “weather test” (check historical temperatures) in your area as I suggested here
using data from, say, here;
and check the ratio of increase of maxima, means and minima.

Faye Busch
October 19, 2011 3:52 am

Thank you Anthony for everything you do. I owe Climate Change one thing. It has introduced me to you and many other upholders of scientific truth and along the way I have learned quite a bit.
Here in Australia, we have Labor PM Julia Gillard’s nineteen “Clean Energy” Bills passed in the Lower House ready to go to a compliant Greens Upper House by end of the year. Greg Combet – get this – Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency – what a contradiction in terms – bores us to death with his undertaker monotone repetitive drumming of “climate change is real”, “carbon pollution is caused by humans, “being on the right side of history”, “in the national interest”, “doing what’s right for the country”, “need to act now for our children and grandchildren”, etc etc. One has to force oneself to listen to the lies.
Thank heaven, we have in Opposition, the Liberal/National Coalition, whose Leader, Tony Abbott, has sworn “a pledge in blood” to overturn the carbon tax package when he wins the next election – the polls say he’ll romp it in. However, Labor has written into the legislation that the Certificates are property rights and therefore any future government disbanding it will have to pay enormous compensation. What a spiteful thing to do to the Australian people who didn’t want the carbon tax in the first place.

October 19, 2011 4:02 am

That’s a great demonstration of the power of real science – a few dollars worth of equipment and a bit of time can thoroughly and effectively expose the claims of promoters with big budgets.

October 19, 2011 4:09 am

Hi Anthony, great experiment. In the words of Mythbusters……. BUSTED!
Just a question, but how possible would it be to replicate the experiment simulating the real world better? For instance a heat lamp instead of an IR lamp and an object in the jar that radiates IR in comparison to Earth?
Would be good to see the “real world simulation” as well as the Gore’s version.

Smoking Frog
October 19, 2011 4:11 am

Frank Lansner October 19, 2011 at 12:57 am
I dont know what to say Anthony, first you keep track of the blog, writings, science, temperature stations, and my oh my, you also perform practical tests in your home!!
He didn’t do it in his home. He did it at his multimillion-dollar, fossil fuel industry-funded Institute of Denialist Science. 🙂

Roy Spencer
October 19, 2011 4:16 am

and all done with only 1 Watts per sq. meter. Impressive.

October 19, 2011 4:36 am

Oh no please don’t replicate Al Gore, one of him is quite enough!

Roger Knights
October 19, 2011 4:39 am

steveta_uk says:
October 19, 2011 at 1:56 am
The BBC version of this experiment used two empty 2L plastic pop bottles, and used an ordinary 100W incandescent light as the heat source. Plastic of course behaves differently from glass, and using a source close to sunlight is better than IR heat lamps.
I wonder why Al Gore’s team specifically chose to get these elements of the experiment wrong?

Someone should try replicating the BBC experiment too, to see if it works the way it was presented.

Mac says:
October 19, 2011 at 2:27 am
‘Nullius in verba’

The quote of the week!

Bill Marsh
October 19, 2011 4:40 am

Stunningly thorough work Anthony. My compliments.
So, the long and short of this is “Gore and Nye lied”. Gore gave a perfect example of ‘climate science’ and its ‘predecisional’ experimentation. You followed the scientific method that calls for replication of results to either reinforce or falsify the claim.

October 19, 2011 4:47 am

Alec Rawls says:
October 19, 2011 at 3:16 am
Looks like maybe it is not just Al Gore that is misrepresenting the actual results of these high school experiments, but a whole raft of supposed educators. If so, it implicates our entire educational system. How many thousands of times have students tried and failed to replicate the stated experimental results without these failures ever managing to emerge as a challenge challenge to those results? The scandal here could really be huge.
Let’s hope… The AGWScience Fiction department continues to create ‘experiments’ and give ‘examples’ which have no basis in physical reality. This begins with the ‘energy budget’, claiming that Visible light heats land and oceans. How? It’s not physically possible. So many have bought into this, even scientists clever in their own fields, that it is presumed true because now ubiquitous, it became ubiquitous through the education system. The opened scent bottle in the classroom supposedly proving that CO2 mixes thoroughly in the atmosphere another one ripe for debunking. That’s how all these junk fictional science ‘facts’ are first promoted. As said above, they wouldn’t have to fake experiments if what they said was true.
This experiment is a great start to debunking the methods used to promote their science fiction. How can Nye be contacted for comment?

P. Solar
October 19, 2011 4:51 am

Ah! At last the application of some rigorous science. Congratulations on a thorough job. Both on the scientific test and the replication of the equipment.
So “the science is settled” : Gore is a FRAUD.

October 19, 2011 4:51 am

Your final figure is an almost perfect steady state, pre-steady state/post-steady state plot. The only problem is that the baseline at the beginning and end are not long enough.
This is your system;
You have a true equilibrium where temp in = temp out and the heat influx = heat efflux.
You then switch on the light and introduce an increase in influx, this is a zero order rate (heat unit time is constant).
The influx of heat increases temperature, and thus heat efflux. The pre-steady state can be used to give us the order of the efflux rate. As we know influx is fixed, the line-shape of the pre-steady state is full of information about the system.
When you switch off the lamp, you have provided us with gold-dust. At steady state, influx = efflux. The moment you switch off the lamp the RATE of the temperature change tells us the efflux rate at steady state, moreover, the line-shape of the post-steady state gives us the order of the relationship between temperature and efflux.
So here us what you have to do,
1) Run the system for at least twice as long, the baseline at the beginning and end should be flat; baselines are very important.
2) Make sure you get to a true steady state, you need the lamp on for at least twice as long as you have run the system in you figure.
3) I need to have the post-steady state curve going to baseline.
Do all those things, package it as a txt file, and I will give you a complete steady state analysis of your system.
I would also ask you to do a few more things. Get some silica gel and heat it to about 150 degrees in you oven, let it cool and weigh out equal amounts into two small zip lock bags.
In one air filled tank place the sealed bag in the bottom and in the other have the bad open. Wait about 2 hours, then run the experiment.
You can buy little helium cylinders. Helium has a high heat conductivity and is less dangerous than H2. This should be a positive control for heat conductivity effects.

October 19, 2011 4:52 am

“1. The conventional wisdom is that a doubling of CO2 leads to approximately a one degree Celsius rise. Using this theory, what rise in temperature would be expected in this experiment?
2. Are there any peer-reviewed laboratory experiments that confirm the theory? And, if so, how do they stand up to sceptical review?
Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that CO2 does not in fact cause any warming?
the problem with ANY set up of this nature is that it does not really test the theory. The C02 or GHG effect actually works like this. It has nothing to do with C02 “trapping” heat.
SW radiation hits the earth and warms it. The earth gives off IR. That IR must return to space. If the atmosphere was transparent to IR the effective radiating altitude would be the surface. But the atmosphere is not transparent to IR. So the reradiates from a higher altitude, from a colder regime. That results in a surface that cools less rapidily than it would otherwise. As you add more GHGs the effective altitude at which the earth re radiates goes up and the earth emits from a colder regime. This effectively SLOWS THE RATE of cooling at the surface.
any experiment which tries to measure this effect, must get the basics right. An input source of SW. A surface that absorbs SW and emits LW. A gas between the input source and the surface that is opaque to IR. at the top the gas must be open to a vacuum.. space. What you test is NOT that the gas gets Hotter. Thats not the theory. The theory is the gas retards the return of IR to SPACE. That results in a surface that cools less rapidily.. people stupidly call this “warming” So yes the surface in warmer with C02 than without it, but not because C02 retains heat. The Co2 raises the altitude at which earth re emits to space, That means earth re radiates from a higher colder regime and thus the surface cools less rapidily than it would otherwise. If the earth reradiated from the surface ( like the moon does) it would cool quickly when the sun wasnt on it.
So any and all experiments using closed containers are wrong from the START. they are wrong because they do NOT test what the theory predicts.
1. That the earth will reradiate from a higher altitude
2. that the surface will consequently COOL LESS RAPIDLY.. or be “warmer” than it would be without a IR opaque atmosphere.
you cant test that in a jar

October 19, 2011 4:54 am

Presumably the experiment failed because Anthony is not a “climate scientist”. I’m sure that if a team of “climate scientists” had done the experiment, they would have reported that the jar with CO2 was warmer. I was about to type /sarc but then realised I wasn’t being sarcastic at all – I sincerely believe that is what they would have reported.

October 19, 2011 5:00 am

Thanks a million, this is great! Now please summarize all this in a narrated video for school children.

October 19, 2011 5:05 am

Anthony, for proper completeness, the experiment should be run twice. On the second run, the CO2 would be put into jar “A” and the air into jar “B”. Everything else – thermometers, heat lamps, etc. – must be left as-is.
This would guarantee that there is no effect due to individual differences caused by the equipment setup used in the experiment. In particular, the distances of the lamps from each jar may not be identical (notice the slight tilt in lamp B) which could produce the observed differences in the data-logged graphs.

October 19, 2011 5:05 am

Seriously you spent all this time to disprove an analogy…..

October 19, 2011 5:09 am

Actually, this *does* remind me of high school physics — experiments often didn’t turn out as expected!
How difficult would it be to do the experiment more accurately? That is, replace the infrared lamps with incandescent bulbs, or halogen bulbs. Show that the two bulbs dissipate the same amount of power — perhaps make a baseline run with no added CO2, to show that jars A & B heat up at the same rate. [If the bulbs aren’t identical, one might need to make two runs, exchanging the position of bulbs or jars.] I’m a little stumped about how to mitigate the cooling effect of the decompressed CO2. One idea is to have a canister of compressed air, and introduce it to jar A — but the flow rates may well be different. Perhaps one needs to have a largish container in the path from CO2 canister to jar B, in which the CO2 can warm to ambient before being introduced to the jar. Or remove the hose from jar B after introducing higher levels of CO2, if the jars are reasonably airtight. As CO2 is heavier than air, the CO2 levels should remain elevated. Since you have a CO2 meter, you can determine if the levels stay high.

October 19, 2011 5:12 am

Fantastic work Anthony! I’m impressed….and I’m hoping that Bill Nye and others are scratching their collective heads about this.
This experiment is such an article of faith in the CAGW playbook – I’m somewhat surprised that no one has actually refuted it until now. I mean – if it were really so easily accomplished in a High School physics lab – one might wonder why haven’t activist high school physics teachers haven’t been driving this down our children’s throats with wild-eyed glee.
We now know the REAL story. It can’t be done. Great post, sir!

October 19, 2011 5:15 am

Why did you not swap the jars gasses.
This would be normal peractice

Ex-Wx Forecaster
October 19, 2011 5:15 am

Wonderful! The shame of it is: those who need to pay attention, won’t.

October 19, 2011 5:18 am

The Mythbusters experiment seems to have registered a repeatable greenhouse warming effect, but the details of their experiment are woefully lacking, at least in this video of the episode (which might be edited down):

At about 3’x3’x2′, the containers they use are a big step up from jars and soda bottles. The ratio of surface area to volume falls as container size increases (square vs. cube), so the larger container reduces the size of the convection effects from container warming as compared to the heat trapping effects of the gas inside. The Mythbuster containers have wood frames that are stretched over with some kind of plastic sheeting, so depending on what they used, they could be relatively transparent to IR. But the video provides no details on the absorption spectrum of the plastic (which will vary with the thickness of the plastic), or on the spectrum of their light source. Neither do they say how much they upped the CO2 level.
I hope that is because the video is edited, because they claim that they are “upping the greenhouse gases in minutely accurate increments.” If they actually filled the container with 100% CO2, the “minutely accurate increments” is misleading, and 100% CO2 makes the 1 degree C higher temperature finding much less dramatic than if they, say, doubled the atmospheric CO2 level. Did Mythbusters really fail to say how much they upped the CO2 level? The linked video does not seem to have been edited beyond the show’s own editing.
In any case, their procedure does seem to have succeeded in getting the GHG heat-trapping mechanism to dominate convection effects, and their set-up is pretty simple (supposing that the fancy PPM monitoring devices are just for show and they are actually using near 100% CO2). So it isn’t TOO hard to get this kind of experiment to work. It’s just that the soda bottles they are telling kids to use (to say nothing of Gore’s glass jars) don’t seem to cut it.

October 19, 2011 5:20 am

So, without a doubt, it was just a propaganda stunt !!!
Shameful and Shameless Mr. Gore !!

Tom Rowan
October 19, 2011 5:29 am

That’s a lot of work to prove something that Algore claims is false.
Over the years I have carefully observed Algore and statistically plotted and matched his claims with reality. This decades long observation and data testing has led me to this develop a fairly good theory to explain Algore’s claims visa vie reality.
The Goron Theory: Algore’s moving lips have a causal inverse relationship to reality.
At this rate the Goron Theory will become a universal law. I haven’t heard back from the Nobel Prize people yet
Well done as usual Anthony.

October 19, 2011 5:31 am

Very good!
Thanks, Anthony.
R.W. Wood should be revisited by all here.

Bill Illis
October 19, 2011 5:33 am

Really well done Anthony.
Just think of how many people actually believed the results of the previous demonstrations.
That should put an END to all these same kind of experiments (and some people have some serious explaining to do).
I would like to see more examples using the IR camera. Daytime; nightime; cloud-cover; clear-sky; different surfaces like grass concrete soil; inside a greenhouse; how far can the camera see (how far do the IR photons actually travel so that an image of warm object can be seen) etc.
The IR camera can bring many of the abstract theories into REALITY (just like your great demonstration has).

Bob Bunnell
October 19, 2011 5:34 am

Bill Nye. Has a facebook account and an email:

October 19, 2011 5:42 am

Great experiment, I like.
I don’t doubt this experiment at all, but for the sake of the completeness of the experiment
I think you should have tested both jars with air only, heat them and watch the temp
and then test both jars with CO2 only, heat them and watch the temp
to prove that the jars aren’t different, then you would test it as you did.
Good job.

Nigel S
October 19, 2011 5:43 am

DR says:
October 19, 2011 at 3:00 am
@ Juraj V.
No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.
Yes, as I and others have also brought up, this should be a major topic.
I agree with DR and Juraj V (Step 3). Prof. R W Wood proved this in 1909. Incidentally polytunnels use a modified polythene that absorbs infrared to lower temperatures and reduce scorching of the fruit and veg.
Sorry for the nitpicking and congratulations on this excellent research.

October 19, 2011 5:55 am

The Photoshop is irrefutable. Those two thermometers are only one thermometer with the fluid level changed by Photoshop manipulation. If it were the same thermometer and used one place and then used another, it would be virtually impossible to have the reflection off the glass of the thermometer match that exactly. It would requite that the thermometer be placed in exactly, and I mean to the sub mm position, and that the light source was not bumped in any way. Somebody “shopped” the fluid level. Crud, even I put some hair on a bald guy for someone using “shop” and the clone tool as a joke. I am hardly a graphics artist either. I promised somebody I know on facebook that I would put her in a picture with her arm around Abe Lincoln. That one is harder since the number of photos of Abe I can get at is limited. All this one would take is a real quick copy and paste. If anyone is interested, I will get the temperature up to 102 F and post the picture. It appears that they keyed on the centigrade side for alignment on the paste. Some of the Fahrenheit marks do not continue where you would expect them too. They are awol. Go down to pixel level in phtoslop and take a look.

Richard M
October 19, 2011 5:56 am

Anthony, it would be great if you could create a 2-3 minute highlight version and send it to Fox News. I’m sure they would be interested.
I’d also like you thank you for demonstrating the “cooling effect” of CO2 that I have mentioned on this blog many times. Of course, the large amount of CO2 over emphasizes that effect, but it’s nice to see it in action. Since the jar itself does warm during the experiment there will be some IR focused on the CO2 in the jars in addition to the conduction. So, the GHE or what I called the “warming effect” of GHGs should also have been present to some degree.
You indicated you think the increase was due to differences in conduction. I think it is a combination of the “cooling effect” and conduction. You need to determine the temperature of the glass container to determine how it was spread. If it was all conduction then the CO2 container would be warmer.
It would be interesting to try your experiment with plastic jars and metal jars. Can we look forward to a sequel?

Darren Parker
October 19, 2011 5:59 am

A further experiment with multiple jars each with different levels of humidity would be of benefit

October 19, 2011 6:03 am

Those of us who are Planetary Society members space science supporters need to bring this bogus experiment to Bill Nye’s (Plan Soc) attention.

Chris D.
October 19, 2011 6:05 am

A small nit, Anthony, but where you state this:
:Note that the two thermometers read 98.1°F at the conclusion of the test, as shown in this screencap from my video @ about 5:35:”
The thermometers are actually at or slightly above 98.6. Either a typo, or you didn’t notice the small “.6” off to the right of the red “98” on them. Immaterial, though, since you point was to show calibration, so the number doesn’t really matter so much.

October 19, 2011 6:06 am

Can anyone who believes that CO2 does not absorb infra-red explain how Antony’s “portable CO2 meter” ( “It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.”) was able to measure CO2 concentration?

October 19, 2011 6:09 am

My hat is off to you, Anthony. Well done, and thank you.

Pamela Gray
October 19, 2011 6:12 am

Interesting comment regarding the solicitation of money based on a fraudulent presentation (aka snake oil presentation). However, in the good ol’ US of A, snake oil sales are still allowed. We expect our general population to have brains enough to see through talking hats. And if some can’t, they deserve to spend their money and drink the snake oil.
If the greens really want this CO2 business to get off the ground and make serious money, they need to get their little selves together and start selling stuff related to CO2 reduction. Buy infomercial time and have at it. Sad to say, there will be folks who will send serious coinage for whatever is hocked at midnight on infomercial channels.

October 19, 2011 6:16 am

At work, didn’t have time to play all the videos, but a quick question:
You show how the temp from the IR bulb changes as the jars are moved in front of the IR light.
Since the majority of the light enters from the top, did you show the effect of the light shining through the lids? Seems to me there’s more mass (because of the handle), and an un-even thickness (cross-section). Might be interesting to see how much heat the lids retain.

October 19, 2011 6:18 am

Re: “Air is a better conductor of heat than CO2.”
Of course it is. Air has water vapor in it. CO2 does not. Algore is a scam artist.

October 19, 2011 6:19 am

Strange that the “Science Guy” doesn’t know that in science you perform the experiment before you draw your conclusions.
I used to like that guy. Now, he sickens me.

Chris D.
October 19, 2011 6:23 am

Truly outstanding work, Anthony!

October 19, 2011 6:24 am

Espen says:
October 19, 2011 at 3:18 am
“To those who mentioned the Mythbusters episode: Did they use IR-transparent containers? (Plexiglass?)”
I believe it was Mylar film. And under those conditions you might see a transient effect. Put the temp sensor near the absorbing wall, it will heat faster in air. Put it near the front mylar film, the CO2 will heat faster. What confounds all of these experiments (including the Woods experiment) is local thermal equilibrium. The whole apparatus wants to come to the same temperature regardless of composition, just like the objects in your living room. This doesn’t mean there is no greenhouse effect (which doesn’t matter anyway because as long as you have free convection surface temperature is controlled by the gas law).

October 19, 2011 6:24 am

mkelly says:
September 28, 2011 at 9:33 am
If Q=m*Cp*dT then I have a problem with this.
The above entry using specific heat concluded that for the same amount of Q that CO2 could not have a higher T than air given the same volume. Mr. Watts has proven my conclusion.
Thank you for all you do, Anthony.

October 19, 2011 6:27 am

the mythbusters episode is here-

the difference there would probably be the material used for the enclosure (some form of plastic), the proximity of the light source, and the probable quantity of co2 and methane. it seems they deem it not necessary to state what levels of co2 they use, but from the video it looks like 7%. maybe it would be worth re doing the experiment at 100,000ppm or so.

Robert Wood
October 19, 2011 6:29 am

This experiment does not work, but it does not disprove AGW. The atmosphere is much thicker than a cookie jar.

Luther Wu
October 19, 2011 6:30 am

In a different context, Al Gore’s fraudulent demonstration would be legally actionable.
In the world as it is, Al Gore’s action is exculpable.

October 19, 2011 6:31 am

Dear Anthony,
there is amistake in Your excellent Work, The sentence after step three is wrong.; A real glass house is not heated by the trapped IR as Prof. Wood has shown in his experiment by using NaCl,which is transparent for Infrared, instead of glass. The glass house is heated by the trapped air.

October 19, 2011 6:33 am

Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.

Theo Goodwin
October 19, 2011 6:37 am

Anthony demonstrates what it is to have an instinct for the empirical. Not one Warmista has demonstrated that he possesses an instinct for the empirical. Many Warmista have demonstrated in peer reviewed work that they have no such instinct.
Many thanks to you, Anthony.

October 19, 2011 6:38 am

Excellent Anthony, job well done!!!

October 19, 2011 6:39 am

It’s worth noting that the whole origin of global warming involves reusing Arrhenius’s work from 1896. The problem here lies that Arrhenius was falsified in his own time. This didn’t stop Callender and Keeling building greenhouse warming off a decades-disproven body of work.
After all, millions in grants are far more important than academic honesty.
For those interested, I recommend “Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ffects
Within The Frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

Richard Wakefield
October 19, 2011 6:44 am

“Gore FAIL.”? No Gore FRAUD!!
Gore already knew this experiment failed. How could he not? But he needed it to succeed. So he deliberately fabricated the experiment and results. The man is a FRAUD!

October 19, 2011 6:45 am

What about the heat capacities of air vs. CO2? CO2 has a lower heat capacity than air, so if I remember my P-chem correctly, the same heat addition should cause the temperature of CO2 to rise more than the temperature of air.

October 19, 2011 6:46 am

Bill Nye is NOT a science guy — he is a check book guy. Al (Man Bear Pig) Gore is a modern day flim flam con man — a grifter. 100 years ago he would have sold snake oil, 50 years ago used cars, 25 years ago Black Helicopter books, today it’s CO2 lies. The props may change, but this is the same old story — the Confidence Game. Congrats Anthony, Instapundit has picked up your post.

October 19, 2011 6:46 am

There could be differences in the bulbs so I recommend repeating but switching jars. Put CO2 into Jar A and leave Jar B as air. Do not move anything when you repeat, other than lifting the lids. Let Jar B air out, and then put CO2 into Jar A and repeat. This will eliminate most experimental errors and is a good control.

A different Bob
October 19, 2011 6:48 am

This whole experiment is thoroughly flawed. CO2 absorption is strong at 2.7, 4.3 and 14um. That glass jar is opaque for wavelengths longer than 2.5 um. There is no way that the relevant radiation is getting to the CO2 under any circumstances.

Dave Springer
October 19, 2011 6:50 am

What you’ve shown is what I have been trying to tell lay people to think of when considering the effect of GHGs. They are insulators. Clearly in your experiment you’ve shown the enriched CO2 acting as an insulator slowing down both warm-up and cool-down. If people would simply acknowledge this insulating property and then take a step further and acknowledge that the gases have a peculiar effect where they let visible sunlight pass through to warm something up on the surface unimpeded then impede the thermal radiation that is emitted when the surface is cooling they pretty have all the conceptual information they need to understand what’s going on.
Gore’s experiment however is an outright fraud. He didn’t actually perform it and the results he claims are not replicable. One needs to use visible light for this experiment to work as advertised. The heating must occur from the inside out not the outside in. This becomes obvious if one merely considers CO2 as an insulator. If you apply heat from the outside, which you did by heating the glass, then the higher fraction of CO2 provides better insulation between the thermometer and the glass. If you applied heat from the inside then the CO2 would impede the heat from escaping the jar. In order to perform this properly you need to use visible light as the heat source like the Mythbusters did:

October 19, 2011 6:51 am

Overall, great debunking of a “simple lab experiment”.
The question, if he/they (Gore/Nye) will misrepresent and misslead folks in this manner, what else do they say that is also not accurate? Is anything that Gore is saying regarding CAGW by CO2 any more factually accurate than this?
He is advising heads of state.
Anyone else see this as a major problem?

John Cooper
October 19, 2011 6:52 am

You are my hero Anthony! Being a former instrumentation engineer who used to accurately measure temperatures at nuclear power plants, I loved this experiment! I know you wanted to duplicate Gore’s experiment, but I would have placed the two jars outside in direct sunlight. That would have eliminated any possibility of one infra-red lamp being stronger than the other, as well eliminate the problem you noted with the glass of the jars blocking the infra-red on the way in.
P.S. Mr. Clapham, your “terrier with a rat” analogy is perfect. LOL!

October 19, 2011 6:55 am

As a follower of your site for many years now, I want to thank you. Being self employed I am able to visit here quite often during the day. I have been here before climate-gate and before your reference pages. This latest experiment is yet another example of the curiosity that drives all of us to look past what we are told is true. You are a true scientist, in the same vein as those who questioned the church about their explanations for the world around them. Through you I have learned more about the way our climate works than I ever did in school. Your unpaid dedication to helping others is commendable to say the least. In all honesty I would recommend you receive a nobel prize before many of the people who have. I know you have changed my life and I’m sure many others. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Ian W
October 19, 2011 6:57 am

Anthony, the only thing I would have added is thermocouples on the glass jars. At the top middle and bottom of the jars to show the glass heating up. Then you would have been able to demonstrate that the glass jars were the heat source not the IR from the lamps.

October 19, 2011 6:57 am

Its Bush’s fault clearly….

October 19, 2011 6:59 am

Could you please respond to the comment by Juraj V.:
Juraj V. says:
October 19, 2011 at 12:19 am
“The way an actual greenhouse works is by tapping infrared radiation. ”
No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood
experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.
I ask because the referenced article by Nasif Nahle has the following sentence in its conclusion:
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation.”
If Mr. Nahle is correct, then your post here has not been helpful to people trying to understand greenhouses.

Chuck Nolan
October 19, 2011 7:04 am

Steve C says:
October 19, 2011 at 1:25
Y’know, it occurs to me that, if only for the time she lets you spend on all this, Mrs. W. must be a strong contender for sainthood.
Steve, I was considering nominating Anthony for sainthood, knighthood, a medal or something but, now that you mention it maybe it is the missus we should be looking into.

October 19, 2011 7:04 am

Nicely done. Excellent straightforward design and you gave their claims far more examination than was warranted. You could not have been fairer in your “replication”. Outstanding!

October 19, 2011 7:10 am

hhhmmmm. Maybe water vapor IS a better greenhouse gas than CO2. Plus remember to replicate what is actually happening in the atmosphere, you should be adding just 1ml of CO2 into the second jar, which should bring DOWN the temperature .0000000001º F.

October 19, 2011 7:11 am

Good protocol and methodology. And you carried it much further than was strictly necessary to prove your hypothesis.
Mr Gore’s experimental design may please the hoi polloi, but it does not come close to being an atmospheric model, and is problematic in several aspects; primarily 1). IR blocking properties of glass. 2). Adiabatic cooling due to expansion of CO2. But he’s trying. If he had majored in science instead of journalism he might be a fair bench tech by now.

October 19, 2011 7:13 am

I am simply shocked that the same guy who tried to abridge the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would lie about his own gravy-train.

October 19, 2011 7:14 am

Great work. One minor criticism is that it would have been beneficial as a control to swap the lamps (and maybe gas mixtures) between the jars and repeat the exercises. This would have allowed elimination of energy source differences between the heat lamps. (Or I am assuming since I cannot actually see the videos right now and have only read the write up.)

October 19, 2011 7:18 am

Scientist for truth, thanks for pointing out the work by R W Wood. The conventional explanation of the glass greenhouse effect working by trapping IR never did make total sense to me, as rigid plastic sheet shelters, poly tunnels, simple netted tunnels and tents also experience the greenhouse effect.

Dan Smith
October 19, 2011 7:21 am

Robert Wood: “This experiment does not work, but it does not disprove AGW. The atmosphere is much thicker than a cookie jar.”
Anthony doesn’t have to disprove AGW with the experiment. He attempts to replicate Gore’s experiment, which proports to demonstrate that CO2 causes a temperature increase in a cookie jar. Despite his best effort, no difference results, throwing Gore’s integrity in doubt.
He takes it a step further by explaining why an increase might occur for reasons other than CO2 absorption of infrared.
If Gore believes the cookie jar model is an accurate portrayal of atmospheric dynamics, he has the burden of proof. I believe the serious scientists who push climate change would be embarrassed by Gore’s shell game deception.

October 19, 2011 7:22 am

First of all GOOD JOB ANTHONY !
Reading about the results others got isn’t as much fun as doing it myself.
I 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 vinegar and water. I have no meter to measure %.CO2 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.
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.
I too was disappointed in Mythbusters.

October 19, 2011 7:23 am

Yield says:
October 19, 2011 at 5:05 am
Seriously you spent all this time to disprove an analogy…..

No, what he proved is that Al Gore doesn’t understand how greenhouse gases work and more importantly, that he is a fraud because his video was obviously faked.
Awesome work, Anthony. Just wonderful.

October 19, 2011 7:26 am

ScientistForTruth is correct that this explanation of how a “real greenhouse” works is false:

The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below

To follow up on his comments:
It is true that the interior of the greenhouse can warm more in the daytime by blocking convective heat energy loss, but paradoxically at night, it can cool more rapidly inside the greenhouse than outside.
The effect of the interior of a greenhouse getting cooler at night is shown in this document. (See figure 1.) As you can see from the real-world data, the greenhouse primarily increases daytime temperature, which is when having warming temperatures is really important for plant growth, because that’s when there is light energy present for the plant to grow. But it also cools more than the outside temperature (in typical nocturnal conditions).
Increasing nighttime temperatures would be of advantage only if you were in danger of frost, and any plant nursery person (e.g., my wife) would tell you that what they do is put out salamander heaters and large fans to keep the temperature of the greenhouse elevated, not rely on the greenhouse to keep it warm at night.
The reason is that greenhouses typically cool more at nighttime than the outside air is because on a typical night, a temperature inversion is set up, and in the “unprotected environment” as you get advection of air (“wind”) across the ground resulting in air exchange between the surface and higher altitudes (the wind moves faster higher up than it does near the surface due to surface friction)—paradoxically when you get a wind gust at night, you see a jump in surface ar temperature as a result of this.
The greenhouse, because it is blocking advective air motion (e.g., winds), cools to the temperature that would be present if there were no mechanical exchange of air between higher and lower altitudes…. only on a perfectly windless night would you expect the two cases (surface air temperature exterior and surface air temperature interior to the greenhouse) to converge.
In plain english, on a cold, windless night it gets much colder near the ground and a larger temperature inversion gets set up in the nocturnal boundary layer.
The above reference also shows that if you add IR blocking material, the temperature is higher than it would have been without the IR blocking material, but the effect is very minor and probably not cost effective.
You can get a reduction in heat energy loss at night just by putting row cover over your plants. It simply blocks convection and wind. Wind over plants causes evaporative heat energy loss, and can cause frost or cold damage, of course.
(This comment is based on a comment I left on JeffID’s blog here)

October 19, 2011 7:26 am

I gave up on Gore’s claim to be an intellectual leader when I realized that he almost never went to class at Harvard . As an underclassman he arrogantly claimed he already learned everything at St Alban’s prep school. Later he joined the antiwar crowd and stayed high until graduation. There was also a long New Yorker article that documented his pretentious phoney intellectualism. So now he refuses to debate because he is just a wannabe dictator. None of this sits well with this PhD.

G. Karst
October 19, 2011 7:27 am

stevo says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.

We eagerly await your demonstration falsifying Anthony’s results! We also hope that we will not hear from you again… until you do! GK

October 19, 2011 7:28 am

I sent e-mail to Bill Nye, asking for his analysis on how the experiment was done to obtain Gore’s result, with a link to Anthony’s careful replication.
We will see if there is a response.

Terry W
October 19, 2011 7:32 am

Well done Anthony!
I know you were duplicating the manbearpig video experiment but, isn’t the radiation source of the experiment wrong to begin with? I didn’t know the sun was a big, infrared, heat lamp.
Why not take the two jars and put them in real sunlight and wait an hour. That should be enough time because you can make some good sun tea in that time in Phoenix.

October 19, 2011 7:36 am

Media Matters exposed themselves as frauds as well. And Al Gore could not make his case even with the use of a white lab coat.

October 19, 2011 7:36 am

Whether or not the Gore demonstration was staged:
1.) This experiment has been performed countless times in formal scientific context since the 19th century. If Svante Arrhenius or Guy Callendar were alive, I’m sure they would be glad to show you how to do it.
2.) As a classroom demonstration this has been performed countless times (including Mythbusters) and a simple google search will point you in the right direction of good instructions.
3.) I don’t care what your positions are on the complicated feedbacks and cycles of the earth climate system. The physics of a bottle with CO2 is basic thermo. Are you questioning the physics on that level? Really? If not, what is your claim, except to point out that the experiment is harder than the edited Gore video makes it seem?
4.) True, infrared will not transmit *directly* through normal glass. But, the infrared lamp will heat the glass, and this heat can transfer to the gas through conduction, convection, and re-radiation. So your point about the transparency is a bit of a red herring.
In short, is your point to prove that CO2 should not have a warming effect? Or is it to prove that you personally cannot reproduce this century-old science?
If the effect is real and testable, than no amount of camera angles in the Gore video can change that point.
REPLY: Neither, my point is that Gore’s experiment doesn’t work as advertised, and they faked results in post production. – Anthony

October 19, 2011 7:36 am

>> stevo says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago. <<
Tyndall proved Al Gore was lying a century ago? Wow, I had no idea Al was that old.

October 19, 2011 7:38 am

Very well done!
One thing, Anthony;
Watt about getting this experiment into a Physics Journal?
If you could manage that, others can use it as a reference……. Or isnt it allowed to have writings in such journals about basic physics anymore? Only stuff about parallell universes nowadays, maybe.

October 19, 2011 7:41 am

Anybody with a background in Physics can tell you that this wasn’t going to show results like they did.
First any global warming is a very large scale effect. Lots of forces in nature don’t scale down (or up) easily. Small things like the orientation of the thermometer could make a lot of difference in the heating.
But in this case it was pretty easy to see what he did. “Take 2 identical bottles … and seal therm”. He then unseals the CO2 bottle to put the hose in. At 1:01 — “then run a hose from a source of CO2 into one of the bottles”. The lid is laying on the hose that was putting CO2 in the bottle, so it wasn’t sealed. With the heat lamp over the bottles more heat entered through the roof. Running the experiment with 1 sealed bottle and one unsealed is really bad form.

October 19, 2011 7:43 am

Bill Nye’s email address is on his website. I dropped him a line with this URL. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

October 19, 2011 7:45 am

Anthony, Well done! What you have shown is that the “Real World” is actually a lot more complicated. This is why real experiments are necessary to test theories and hypotheses. It is a travesty that there are next to NO real experiments attempting to verify the assumptions of man-made CAGW. The CLOUD experiment in CERN has taken years to design and construct and will take years to get data – demonstrating how complex real world systems are!
Considering the way public policies are being adjusted in the face of the CAGW threat, it is a total travesty that there is not one iota of robust experimental evidence to support CAGW.

October 19, 2011 7:47 am

It’s amazing that these people still don’t seem to understand they can’t fake their results.
A perfect analogy for the whole AGW movement. It’s like the Tiljander series on a desktop.

October 19, 2011 7:58 am

Has anyone contacted Bill Nye to give himself a chance to defend himself? There does seem to be a possibility of fraud involved in Gore’s broadcast if the experiment was faked and money was solicited. Does the FCC regulate such matters?
Contact Bill Nye
To contact Bill Nye:
Or write:
Nye Labs, LLC
Bill Nye The Science Guy
4742 42nd Avenue SW, #143
Seattle, WA 98116

October 19, 2011 7:58 am

Mosher: “That results in a surface that cools less rapidily than it would otherwise.”
But by how much? Every day has at least 8 hours of no sunshine. If an extra 100ppm of CO2 only keeps the earth warmer an extra hour or even 6 hours in a day then (as we all suspect) there is nothing to worry about.
How long does an extra 100pm delay cooling Mosher?

October 19, 2011 8:05 am

steven mosher says: October 19, 2011 at 4:52 am
I’ve read this blog for many years and from it learned basically just what you said about the effects of additional CO2, but you said it in such a clear, understandable, and concise way…that was really awesome.

October 19, 2011 8:07 am

I noticed that Anthonie’s jars were not pressure sealed. That seems to be the key.
The only people who could replicate the results seemed to use sealed containers.
The slight difference in fall rate is more germane to a planet but it isn’t good TV because it is so slight even with thousands of times greater concentration of CO2.

Richard M
October 19, 2011 8:10 am

BTW, the Mythbusters experiment has a huge problem. If you look closely you will note that the CO2 and methane greenhouses were on the interior. The controls were on the outside. Oops.

October 19, 2011 8:12 am

Scientistfortruth. Wiki now talks about “real” greenhouses and and uses Woods experiment to explain how they work. This is at complete odds to what millions of us were taught at school, that being the explanation that anthony has posted. Some are not happy with this as seen in the discussion page and they even question Woods’ work. As previously stated the accepted explanation of the greenhouse effect never made total sense to me but It would have been polite of Wiki to have put up a few notes to say all the school books are wrong and whole generations of school children have been misinformed.
So just to be sure I checked with the good old BBC, unfortunately they don’t discuss real green houses and direct their reader to Wiki.
Methinks someone needs to build two identical greenhouses one coated in a material that is transparent to both visible and infrared light and the other that blocks infrared light (glass) and test this out.

Pete H
October 19, 2011 8:12 am

Anthony, that took me back to my first science experiment in school involving a metal ball, a Bunsen burner and a metal ring, the aim to explain thermal expansion!
After clearing the cobwebs and searching the attic I found I still have the school excersise book and guess what? There was an accurate list of the items used, along with the makers names and even serial numbers all laid out in experimental scientific form, as we were taught in the 1960’s.
I find it extremely sad that you have had to waste your valuable family time replicating the rubbish Gore’s people put out (there is no doubt in my mind that he could not have even put this basic experiment together without assistance)! Then again, anything stopping Gore making more money from terminological inexactness is worth the effort…(with thanks to W. Churchill for giving me the vocabulary to avoid saying liar!)

October 19, 2011 8:14 am

I hope a Science book publisher contacts you soon asking you to submit your experimental plan targeting both elementary junior high school Science classes. It’s been a few years since my days of observing (4th and 5th grade science classes) and then running scientific experiments (6- 9th grades, general science, chemistry and physics classes) in the Ohio public schools.
I can’t think of a better way for our youth to understand the complexity of science and the importance of a well designed experimental plan then for them to replicate your experiments.

October 19, 2011 8:16 am

This shouldn’t come as a surprise–Al Gore never was, isn’t, and never will be a scientist. This evidence clearly demonstrates it.
Al Gore the Fraud! Maybe it should be Al Gore the Failure! Or Al Gore the lying rascal!

Sun Spot
October 19, 2011 8:17 am

But but but the post normal hypothesis consensus science says you don’t have to actually do the experiment only model the experiment. Mr. Gore only had to model the experiment to prove his hypothesis, Mr. Watts your actual experiment and real data must be flawed (where is your model ?) !!

October 19, 2011 8:18 am

Haven’t read all the comments, but the ‘experiment’ fails at container. Those cookie jars are what I use to steep brandies. The lids do not fit. Period. I have had *adult* Drosophila make their way inside. Gas exchange would be a breeze.

Pete H
October 19, 2011 8:19 am

stevo says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
“Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.”
Stevo, It seems to me Anthony was replicating “Gore’s People” not Tyndall.

October 19, 2011 8:20 am

Steven Mosher says:
So any and all experiments using closed containers are wrong from the START. they are wrong because they do NOT test what the theory predicts.
1. That the earth will reradiate from a higher altitude
2. that the surface will consequently COOL LESS RAPIDLY.. or be “warmer” than it would be without a IR opaque atmosphere.
you cant test that in a jar
I agree with you, but I think there are even more reasons why you can’t test it in a box,
see my comment earlier, here
However, you seem to suggest that CO2 is transparent to 0-5 um where the sun emits. This is in fact not true.Recently it was discovered that it has some UV absorptions, which is now used to ID it on other planets. It also has absorptions around 2um and it strongly absorbs at 4.3. In fact, I suspect the CO2 meter used in this experiment by Anthony probably is a spectrophotometer set at 4.26 um calibrated at that wavelength for various CO2 concentrations.This causes cooling, not warming, as this radiation ( from the sun) is sent out to space by re-radiation. We can actually measure it as it bounces back from the moon,
see footnote here :
Tyndal and Arrhenius were of course completely wrong because they could not see the whole spectrum of a gas….

October 19, 2011 8:20 am

Robert Wood wrote:
“This experiment does not work, but it does not disprove AGW.” True, but that was not Anthony’s purpose. Are you trying to move the goalposts, Robert Wood? AGW isn’t his theory. It’s Al Gore’s theory, and it’s up to him and the other advocates to show proof. Disproof of almost any proposition is virtually impossible. Science is about proof, not disproof. (Please read the first chapter of the late Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” for a good explanation of this principle) The Gore/Nye experiment does not support the AGW theory at all. Anthony Watts has shown this by replicating the experiment as closely as possible given that Gore/Nye have not published their methodology. In fact the evidence suggests that Gore/Nye never performed the experiment they rely on to demonstrate the “reality” of AGW. The telethon was called “24 Hours of Reality” (Al Gore’s choice, no doubt). Anthony has shown that those 24 hours contained considerable trickery.

October 19, 2011 8:25 am

Kohl says:
October 19, 2011 at 2:04 am
This is just so sweet!
Perhaps the problem is that Mr Gore really does think that it is just science 101. That is why he goes astray…. But then again, he KNEW the experiment was fabricated.
I’m beginning to think that he is really just another charlatan showman desperately ‘scratching a living’ from the whole AGW thing ….. But then again, he MAKES SO MUCH out of it.

The Big Lie makes Big Money! So thanks a lot Big Al, it’s worse than we thought! Well almost, since, like leapords, these Climate Science charlatans can’t ever change their spots.
[Likewise, is anyone still for Obama’s Spendulus et Lootus Maximus? At least he already repeated the experiment for us right out in the open. Again!]

October 19, 2011 8:27 am

Excellent Job, Anthony! Could you possibly put all this on videodisc or tape and organize a process whereby it would go to all the high schools where Gore tried to brainwash the kids with his false stunt? Even if this was shown to a different group of kids due to the elapsed time between the programming and the de-programming, it could do some great global good.

October 19, 2011 8:30 am

Great effort!
I’d swap the jars then swap the lamps.
The jars and lamps are also variables.

Michael Larkin
October 19, 2011 8:32 am

I thoroughly enjoyed this, Anthony. Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble for all of us.
As others have said, just to completely nail it, you could have switched lamps around to eliminate possible differences in the IR bulbs. But I suppose your IR-reading device showed the temps of the bulbs were similar?
I think Mosher is right – there’s no way to do a convincing experiment in an enclosed system to demonstrate the GHG effect. But the point is, Al Gore etc. created the straw man, and so can’t complain when you trash it in their own terms. And of course, neither you nor most sceptics actually deny the GHG effect.

October 19, 2011 8:34 am

Man, that’s a lot of work. Well done, Anthony.

October 19, 2011 8:34 am

I agree with Karl that the experiment should be run twice. The IR bulbs cannot be expected to provide exactly 100W output. Also there may be some differences in the cookie jars. By running the experiment again, and swapping the air and CO2 mixtures, these variables can be eliminated. Although Gore/Nye did not bother to do this.
Just for grins have you considered running the experiment with dry air vs. humid air ?

October 19, 2011 8:35 am

Lie an intentionally false statement
Fraud wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
See also: cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice.
Arrest Al Gore !!!!
On a side note: perhaps Anthony you could “reach out” to Bill Nye the Science Liar and see if he was duped or was he fully aware of the fraud { which would indicate a conspiracy }
REPLY: Never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony

Robert of Ottawa
October 19, 2011 8:35 am

Uh-ho … CO2 produces cooling 🙂

Jason Calley
October 19, 2011 8:36 am

stevo says: October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.
Uh, Stevo, you may wish to brush up on your “reading for comprehension” skills. Mr. Watts was not testing whether CO2 absorbs IR. No one is arguing that CO2 is transparent to IR. Mr. Watts was only testing whether certain CAGW advocates just make up things and present them as fact. Gore fail. Nye fail. Stevo fail.
Turboblocke says: October 19, 2011 at 6:06 am Can anyone who believes that CO2 does not absorb infra-red explain how Antony’s “portable CO2 meter” ( “It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.”) was able to measure CO2 concentration?
You may want to get with Stevo and see whether the two of you can get a group discount on those “reading for comprehension” courses.

Charlie A
October 19, 2011 8:36 am

What is missing in Anthony’s experiment is a control run.
RomanM’s suggestion of rerunning the experiment, swapping which jar gets CO2 vs air eliminates many of the unknowns of the setup, such as potentially uneven illumination. This form of control run is better than the other suggested improvement of a 1st run with air in both jars, and then a 2nd with CO2 in both jars, bercause RomanM’s suggestion compensates for things like changes in ambient temperature between the two runs.

October 19, 2011 8:40 am

Brillant work! I would caution you however, about the “Greenhouse warmth” claim, with regard typical borosilicate glass being a “one way valve” for 6 to 12 Micron IR.
Please see this:
I also have a couple 1950’s and 1960’s Meteorology/Atm Physics texts which explicitly call out Dr. Wood’s 1909 tests, and then say “The so-called Greenhouse effect should be refered to as the ‘Atmopsheric Effect’, and it is unique to a planetary atmospheric situation..”
Thus the term “Greenhouse gas” is, at its base in error.
I hope you realize this in NO WAY detracts from your trashing the Gore-a-bull work!

October 19, 2011 8:44 am

Anthony, I can’t view the videos w/a dial-up connection, but I assume the CO2 concentration was near 100%. If 100% CO2 can only make ~.5F differences, the actual 280 to 390 ppm atmospheric change wouldn’t be even remotely detectable, at least w/this experimental setup.
Nye/Gore’s problem now will be the cover-up…

October 19, 2011 8:44 am

Dear Anthony,
Could you run again, with intense visible light shining through the glass onto a black surface, so that the infared is produced inside the jar. It would be more representative of the Earth, if not of Gore’s version.

October 19, 2011 8:49 am

What Anthony has done here was to prove Gore to be a fraud and has documented that very well by replicating Gores claimed experiment.
As for other discussion of specific details relating to the physics involved concerning IR properties of CO2, air, glass, heat transfer, heat capacity, lighting sources, etc., that is another can of worms. An aquarium (2 ea) could be used in direct sunlight and may provide more accurate results and be easier to acquire than the specified cookie jars if testing this other can of worms.
But the main point is that Anthony was testing Gore’s so called experiment and went to quite a bit of effort in replicating it and documenting the results, thus proving Gore to be the fraud that he is. To my knowledge, in this case, Anthony is the only person on the planet to do this. Thus he clearly qualifies as an extraordinary individual.

steve b
October 19, 2011 8:50 am

Gore has no idea that for science to be real is must be reproducible. This is the same mistake ClimateGate made. They thought they were safe if they could keep others from seeing the data they were working with. It amazes how stable tempertures have been in the last 100 yrs moving less than 0.8 degrees celcius. That’s only 0.008 degrees per yr. Building one new road or building that replaces some trees can do that.

October 19, 2011 9:01 am

I didn’t see this but I would have rerun the experiment, by switching the AIR/CO2 jars to the exact location where the other one sat. Hence, determining if the bulbs variation or the height variation cause the result.

October 19, 2011 9:03 am

Thank you for all you do Anthony your hard work and attention to details is much appreciated.

Theo Goodwin
October 19, 2011 9:05 am

Matt says:
October 19, 2011 at 7:36 am
What a good Warmista you are! You do not address the details of Anthony’s work to reproduce the Gore “experiment.” Instead, you cite testimony about others who have done similar experiments. You cite theory which, according to you, requires that the Gore experiment must work. No instinct for the empirical. Good Warmista.

October 19, 2011 9:07 am

>>>Steve Mosher
>>>you cant test that in a jar
If you followed my suggestion and shone an SW light onto a black surface in the jar (creating LW radiation), and if the surrounding CO2 reradiated some of that LW back, would not the black surface be slightly warmer in the CO2 jar?
No idea if it would work – just thinkin’.

Crispin in Waterloo
October 19, 2011 9:08 am

The claim is this shows the greenhouse effect. Well, it is perhaps a greenhouse but it certainly is not an atmosphere which is open at that top. It is nice to see this nonsense challenged directly.
The experiment can be (slightly) challenged on the basis that the lamps or jars may be different. Changing nothing else, let it run with the lamps swapped. Then swap the CO2 to the other jar, and lastly swap the lamps back, performing a run each time.
You have everything bought and set up so let ‘er run. It is quite possible the small difference in temperature will reverse for one of the runs. If the results are consistent, it will be difficult challenge the null result. The claim that the setup will demonstrate the greenhouse gas effect will have been conclusively falsified. This falsification is implicit in the faked temperature display, nicely exposed, but you have shown it explicitly.

October 19, 2011 9:09 am

But it really is indicative of their level of desperation. Making stuff up to support your core theory was risky and pointless. The truth will out as it always does.
Let’s see if this faithful attempt to honestly test Gore’s high school physics “experiment” gets picked up by the Main Stream Media. Lies like this ruin peoples careers.

Jason Calley
October 19, 2011 9:09 am

Kohl says: October 19, 2011 at 2:04 am Perhaps the problem is that Mr Gore really does think that it is just science 101.
Yes! I have several very bright friends who think that CAGW is a fact, and the thing that they hold in common is the belief that climate study is explainable by Science 101. I have had one of them tell me “It’s just simple physics!”
Uh, no. Climate science is NOT science 101. Climate science is not even rocket science. It is MUCH, MUCH, more complicated than mere rocket science. Rocket science can be modeled by systems with only a limited number (ten? or twenty? thirty?) of variables, pretty much all of them directly measurable and predictable. Not so climate. Climate is intrinsically hard!
Bill Nye is a person who has achieved success and fame in his field, that of playing make-believe as a tool for illustrating middle school level science. It is sad that he thinks his success as a pedagogue qualifies him to preach to real scientists.

October 19, 2011 9:16 am

I can understand getting this kind of smoke and mirrors trickery from Gore but I cannot understand how Bill Nye would tolerate it. I have alot of faith in Nye, I do not agree with him about CAGW but I still beleive he is a science guy at heart. The fact that he lent his voice to a simple high school physics experiment distorted for propaganda is deeply troubling and disappointing to me.
I expected more from Nye.

October 19, 2011 9:16 am

Not one comment from R Gates? Curious.
Was the bet from the original post still on?

Theo Goodwin
October 19, 2011 9:18 am

Jason Calley says:
October 19, 2011 at 8:36 am
Very well said. Everyone who has not understood that Anthony’s work is about the particulars of Gore’s work should read Jason’s post. Anthony argues that Gore’s presentation of the experiment and his claims about it reveal that the experiment was not actually done. It matters not at all that others have done this experiment more professionally or with different results. Anthony is not trying to prove something about climate science but to prove something about Gore.

October 19, 2011 9:22 am

yay!!! now we no longer have to listen to the co2 fetishists claiming supernatural powers for their favorite gas! this settles the issue for all time and the co2 shrimpers will slink off in shame.
right? and all the corollary baloney whirls down the vortex with a whoosh and a gurgle. right?
no more demonic carbonic ghg freaks! right?

Joe Bastardi
October 19, 2011 9:26 am

I remember in our debate on O’Reilly he brought up the Venutian atmosphere and tried to link it to earth, as if a) He was around at the time of the creation and had knowledge that Venus was like Earth and b) apparently the Venutians messed up their atmosphere and looked what happen. Nothing about the density of the atmosphere on Venus, just trying to use an example that had nothing to do with the argument on the trace amounts of co2 in our atmosphere and link it to the warmth of Venus.
You know what they say. Men are from Mars, Women from Venus and the Warmingistas are truly out of this world… as far as reality goes

George Lawson
October 19, 2011 9:28 am

With such further damning proof of Gores continued cheating and lying on everything he promotes on the back of the GW scare, should we not put together a complete list of the proven lies and scientific fraud that formed the basis of his and Pachauri’s awarding of the Nobel Prize, and send it to the Nobel Prize committee in an effort to have the award overturned and thereby have the dignity of the prize restored?

Robert Austin
October 19, 2011 9:29 am

stevo says:
October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
“Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.”
Poor stevo, just can’t admit that his/her hero Gore is a charlatan and a congenital prevaricator. Any halfwit knows Antony’s efforts were directed entirely at showing that Gore’s “experiment” was faked and that an attempt at duplicating Gore’s experiment would fail to show the temperature differential claimed by the Gore experiment. Wisdom is saying nothing when you have nothing constructive to offer.

October 19, 2011 9:33 am

Just looking at this experiment it’s obvious to anyone who’s worked in IR that the majority of the heating is not going to be from IR acting on the gases, glass is pretty opaque to IR. The method is as Anthony says, the glass heats up and heats the gas by conduction/contact. I’ve had experience with IR windows for both near and far IR applications, and they are pricey, plain glass won’t work. For far IR, take a look at the windows on something like an Army Apache TADS pod, the window for the FLIR is opaque to visible, it’s made of germanium. But hey, I guess a little white lie in something like this is justified if, like, the cause is really, really important, right?

October 19, 2011 9:40 am

I followed the link to the thread about the earlier post on the experiment being faked. Believers and sceptics seem to be talking past each other in that most commenters there are missing the point and seem to think that we think that pointing out that Gore’s experiment was faked proves that CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I have seen instructions for a similar experiment that uses fish tanks that are open at the top but in most other ways is similar to this one. As Jason Calley says, reality is a lot more complex. The biosphere of a planet is nothing like a fish tank or a glass jar and working out what might happen in it is far from simple. I did notice that the discussion over there was completely one sided and that no-one has been over there to give them an update.