Bill Nye @TheScienceGuy and Al Gore, 'not even wrong' on CO2 'Climate 101' experiment according to paper published in AIP Journal

From the department of  “I told you so and I have an experiment that precedes this to prove it” comes a paper that proves Bill Nye’s faked ‘greenhouse effect’ experiment is also based on the wrong ‘basic physics’. Remember when I ripped Bill and Al a new one, exposing not only their video fakery, but the fact that experiment fails and could never work? Well, somebody wrote a paper on it and took these two clowns to task.

The Hockey Schtick writes:

Oh dear, the incompetent & faked attempt by Bill Nye to demonstrate the greenhouse effect for Al Gore’s Climate “Reality” Project has also been shown by a peer-reviewed paper to be based upon the wrong “basic physics” as well. According to the authors, Nye’s experiment and other similar classroom demonstrations allegedly of the greenhouse effect:

“All involve comparing the temperature rise in a container filled with air with that of the same or a similar container filled with carbon dioxide when exposed to radiation from the Sun or a heat lamp. Typically, a larger temperature rise is observed with carbon dioxide and the difference is attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to the physical phenomena responsible for the climate change. We argue here that great care is required in interpreting these demonstrations and, in particular, that for the case of the demonstration described by Lueddecke et al., the results arise primarily from processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change.”

Bill Nye the propaganda guy experiment for the Climate Un-Reality Project

According to the paper, Nye’s experiment

“demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects.

Not only did the authors find that addition of the non-greenhouse gas Argon had similar heating effects to CO2, the Argon control actually heated up slightly more than in the greenhouse gas CO2 experiment, definitively proving that such experiments assume the wrong “basic physics” of radiation were responsible for the heating observed, instead of the limitation of convection due to CO2 having a greater density compared to air.

Nye’s experiment not only limits convection by addition of denser CO2, it completely eliminates convection by enclosing the CO2 in a bottle with the top on.

According to the authors,

“It has been known for more than a century that the warming of air in a real greenhouse results primarily from entirely different physics—mainly that the glass prevents mixing between the warm air inside and the cooler air outside, and therefore suppresses convective heat transfer between the interior and the exterior; the infrared absorption of the glass plays a much smaller role. We show here, via experimental data and a simple theoretical model, that the effects observed in the demonstration described in Ref. 1 arise from a similar restriction of convection rather than from radiative effects. In this case, it is the density difference between carbon dioxide and air, rather than the presence of a solid barrier, that suppresses mixing of the gases. Although the details differ, similar considerations apply to other demonstrations that have been reported.”[including Nye’s ‘greenhouse effect’ enclosed in a glass bottle]

Thus, Nye’s experiment, in addition to the video fakery and incompetence, is not even wrong on the “basic physics” of the greenhouse effect.

As the authors point out in the conclusion,

“Although not an accurate demonstration of the physics of climate change, the experiment we have considered and related ones are valuable examples of the dangers of unintentional bias in science, the value of at least a rough quantitative prediction of the expected effect, the importance of considering alternative explanations, and the need for carefully designed experimental controls.”


 

The paper in the American Journal of Physics:

Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics

Paul Wagoner , Chunhua Liu  and R. G. Tobin

Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.

Full paper available here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
george e. smith

Well this expose is also gobbledegook.
Why can’t these charlatans get it through there thick heads that heat lamps are maybe 1,000 Kelvin, and radiate at 3 microns wavelength, 100 times the radiance of the earth’s 10.1 micron 288 K LWIR emissions (that run the GHG scam.
And a light bulb runs at 3,000 K and radiates at 1 micron, not 10, so it is 10,000 times the radiance of the earth. and 1 or 3 micron photons are much more energetic than 10.1 micron photons, about 10 times and 3 times respectively.
If you are going to do the Bill Ny experiment, you have to use a thermal radiator, that is at 288 K; like a 16 ounce bottle of water that has been chilled in the frig.
That will radiate about 390 W/m^2 of 10.1 micron radiation.
So try that Bill Nye; you meat head !

It is hard to square “Right result” as a product of video fakery.

george e. smith

A 3,000 kelvin light bulb is at half of the sun BB Temperature, so it is radiating at one sixteenth of the radiance of the surface of the sun. That will cook EVERYTHING in you glass bottle.

bushbunny

They present like the middle ages (historical) alchemists, trying to turn lead into gold?

CodeTech

But it’s not about the science.
Millions of people actually BELIEVE that Bill Nye and/or Al Gore demonstrated “global warming” on live TV. That is what counts. Anyone else is funded by the Koch brothers and eats kittens.

bushbunny

They are nuts, CO2 is a small part of our atmosphere, how can they justify their experiment?

Link to paper found to have been changed to “http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf”

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

This might be tragic if at least Gore still believed what Gore says.
Does this make any donations received by those motivated to contribute after watching that demonstration, now proceeds from deceptive practices?
Well now that it’s officially shown the faked-up experiment had the radiative physics all wrong, the floor shall now be opened to the twenty or so regular whackos who insist the scientifically-proven radiative physics are just made-up bunk that violates the real laws of physics thus the experiment would never have worked even if it was real.
Release the (barking mad) hounds!

Aphan

Anthony, you said “not even wrong” instead of “not even right” on basic physics in your conclusion. 🙂

Michael D

Although it is satisfying to read such a damning critique of the “experiment” it is disappointing that the authors gave Gore and Nye even the small amount of credit that they do (i.e. that it was an honest mistake) when in fact Anthony Watts has shown so clearly that this was a fraud from beginning to end.
By the way, Anthony, that original critique that you wrote was one of the first things that I read here, and I often quote it to illustrate how a real scientist works. It stands in judgement against Gore and Nye. Even more damning was Nye’s subsequent dismissal of your critique as irrelevant – a real scientist would have been appalled.

Aphan

Coincidently, on another scientist owned blog in a thread on “integrity”, the blog owner deleted my totally reasonable and logical comments and told me “this conversation is getting us nowhere, I’m shutting it down.”
I should be used to it by now, but it still shocks me.

joelobryan

The ever dishonest Pope Gore will try to claim he was still right about CO2, but for the wrong reason. And the sad part, most of his congregation are too stupid to know better.

Pete of Perth

They should repeat the “experiment” – one container @300ppmv CO2, the other @400ppmv CO2.

Robert B

I could be wrong but isn’t CO2 a cheaper gas than argon to put between double insulted glass to lessen the conduction from pane to pane?
Slightly off topic but I have done some unintentional experiments this week. It has been bloody cold and there have been some very frosty mornings. The temperatures have dropped to -3 C and the surface temperatures to -7 C. The differences can be up to 5 C or 10 F over two metres (just short of 7 feet). 5 C warmer 2 metres away seems to be less effective than 50 C cooler 10 km away.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From george e. smith on August 10, 2014 at 10:30 pm:

If you are going to do the Bill Ny experiment, you have to use a thermal radiator, that is at 288 K; like a 16 ounce bottle of water that has been chilled in the frig.

288K – 273 = 15°C
(15°C * 9/5) + 32 = 59°F.
Dang, I can get water at the tap colder than that. Check that fridge, you’re seriously risking food poisoning!

“Well, somebody wrote a paper on it and took these two clowns to task.”
The paper was published in AJP in 2010 (submitted July 2009), which seems to predate the Gore/Nye demo. Neither Gore nor Nye are mentioned.

Ronald

Well that’s nice. Ye I know the experiment is wrong but it is not about being wright but scaring the crap out kids pants and a nice job they do.
The fun thing is that although its wrong there is a nice way it fires bag.
We have two bottles one whit normal 100% air and one whit 100% CO2.
Now look at the temperature difference, maybe they not done at that point but I see a 2 degrees C temperature rice more whit CO2. OK CO2 makes it hot but thats 100% CO2.
That makes 1% CO2 0,02 degrees C warming but in the air is only 0,39% CO2 that would make a warming of say 0,000078 degrees. Not rely that much of global warming. But it is human admitted CO2 and that is only 4% of the total so how many degrees do humans get the earth warmer? You could say NON.
Mad is not my strong thing to do but even so you cane calculate it one your own and get similar results.

lukemullen says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Link to paper found to have been changed to “ http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf

bushbunny

Well imagine all those so called scientists and climate mongers admitting they are wrong? Gripes, no way Jose, it is my job at stake! There is always and alternative opinion they say. This might OK in some disciplines like archaeology and history, but when it comes to Physics it belongs to the nature and order of things, or laws.
And they haven’t got one law right yet? Invented their own as a strange and false hypothesis. And unfortunately the majority who support their hypotheses haven’t a clue, so they go along with the ride.

DirkH

george e. smith says:
August 10, 2014 at 10:30 pm
“If you are going to do the Bill Ny experiment, you have to use a thermal radiator, that is at 288 K; like a 16 ounce bottle of water that has been chilled in the frig.”
I just put two of them in a cool bag for travelling. I hope there’s no CO2 in the bag – otherwise I’ll have thermal runaway.

Ronald says:
August 10, 2014 at 11:53 pm
100% CO2 = 2°C
1% CO2 = 2°C
(400ppm/1,000,000)*2 = .0008°C

Lets try that again:
100% CO2 = 2°C
1% CO2 = .02°C
(400ppm/1,000,000)*2 = .0008°C

Bryan

Simple experiments like this destroy aspects of elegant but wrong climate science.
Far more of these simple experiments are required before nonsense is built into climate models.
Its a pity that the authors had to say that this paper in no way undermines IPCC science .
Presumably without that get out clause the paper would never see the light of day
Galileo had the same problem with the Jesuits.

John F. Hultquist

Aphan @ 10:41 — Please note that there is a link there that you should have followed. Go do that.
————————————
If folks would listen to me – no one does – this would be called the “atmospheric effect” and anyone using the term greenhouse when not talking about growing plants would be buried in 1,000 pounds of cooked spaghetti.

Howard Shaw

100% CO2 is Freezing Cold Dry Ice.

Dr. Strangelove

In the experiment shown in the video, the glass jars are closed. There’s no convective cooling taking place. “CO2 reduces convective mixing with ambient air because it is heavier than air” is not a valid explanation in this case. The jar is full of CO2 and it does not mix with air.
Moreover, light bulbs are used for radiant heating. The tungsten filament in light bulbs is at over 2,000 C temperature. It emits light and shortwave IR < 3 um. This is like the sun’s radiation. CO2 absorbs longwave IR centered at 15 um. So they cannot show “greenhouse effect” in this experiment even in principle.
I suspect the temperature difference between jar with air and jar with CO2 is the gas is hotter than air. Why? Because CO2 is pumped to the jar. Pumping increases pressure and that also increases temperature. CO2 must be at higher pressure than atmospheric pressure to force the air out of the jar. It would take some time for the heat to transfer from gas to thermometer so it appears the light is heating the gas. Actually the light is heating the thermometer because glass can partly absorb light and SWIR.

Bryan

Dr. Strangelove says
“I suspect the temperature difference between jar with air and jar with CO2 is the gas is hotter than air. Why? Because CO2 is pumped to the jar. Pumping increases pressure and that also increases temperature”
No its the other way round gases cool when released from a cylinder
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=470311

Greg

Bill Nye @TheScienceLie
Al Gore’s Climate “Reality” : the reality is that it’s a lie. A very successful one.

Matt

@bushbunny
Careful with that analogy 🙂 It is possible to turn lead into gold – it is only too expensive, which is why we keep digging it out of the ground instead. Granted, it takes a ‘modern alchemist’ 😉

Dr. Strangelove

“No its the other way round gases cool when released from a cylinder”
But how do you put it in the cylinder in the first place? By pumping it. That heats it. When released it will cool. But cooler than ambient air? No. Because you’re putting it in another container. It has to force air out of that container.

Tim

Their biased data and the resulting misleading pronouncements are all they need for graphic, simplistic, MSM messages. Once the Press Releases are distributed, the genie is out of the bottle and the PR message-right or wrong- has gone viral.
Mission accomplished.

Richard

An interesting point, does the increase of co2 in a bottle increase pressure , though slight , to show an increase in temp.
Like a pressurised cooker.

Peter Stroud

But surely, the warming due to GHG is accepted, by just about everyone: it is the positive feedback/water vapour effect that is disputed. So any such experiment is unnecessary anyway.

Dr. Strangelove

BTW the light can heat the glass jar and the glass emits LWIR that CO2 can absorb. They might be able to detect it but they should isolate other possible causes of heating.

Greg

“Well, somebody wrote a paper on it and took these two clowns to task.”
“According to the paper Nye’s experiment…”
The paper mentions neither Gore, Nye nor their faked experiment. So it is rather mislead say someone “took them to task”.
As Nick noted, the paper was published before the video was done.

richardscourtney

Greg:
At August 11, 2014 at 2:04 am you say

the paper was published before the video was done

With a little thought you could have noticed that the paper predating the “faked experiment” of Gore and Nye makes their “experiment” even more egregious.
Richard

richardscourtney

Blast! I activated one of those ridiculous stars by accident!

richard verney

Nick Stokes says:
August 10, 2014 at 11:41 pm
“Well, somebody wrote a paper on it and took these two clowns to task.”
The paper was published in AJP in 2010 (submitted July 2009), which seems to predate the Gore/Nye demo. Neither Gore nor Nye are mentioned.
//////////////////
In late 2009 when Climategate broke, the BBC endeavoured to shore up the science and basic physics upon which AGW is based.
It ran the bottle experiment as proof of the soundiness of AGW.
To any scientist, it was obvious that the demonstartion/experiment was fundamentally flawed. But it did the trick of deceiving the public (there was a live studio audience who were all very impressed by the experiment). That, of course, was the reason why it was given air time, and presented on prime time TV.
Regretably, scientific integrity is very low down on the scale. This will come back to haunt, since it only takes a moment of madness to lose trust, and once lost, it is difficult to regain. The public will react harshly as the deception is revealed and the price that they have been forced to pay becomes apparent all based upon dodgy science (particularly the modelling and their projections) and the over blown extrapolations.

AussieBear

This has always been my gripe about the experiment. One jar contains air, the other pumped full of CO2. First off, to prove anything, the concentration of CO2 should be representative of the current atmosphere at 400ppm. If that does not warm, then what is the point of “pure” CO2, that concentration will never exist in nature.

Ex-expat Colin

I saw that at the time…”uncontrolled” came straight to mind. Plus the ex Scientific Advisor BS which revealed his total arrogance. He appeared to be very angry?
I emailed a complaint to the BBC…long response about the lovely journo presenter. Lick ar*e mainly.

sophocles

M Simon says:
http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
============================================
Hmm. Trying to download using the link directly didn’t work for me. Firefox
kept returning 404 Page not found.
Instead the page
http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/rgt%20publications.html
loads. The pdf is accessible partway down:
”Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics,”Download pdf
(Paul Wagoner … etc)
Using the link provided there worked and tested OK. The link is as given
above but direct access to the link is being filtered and denied.
Hope this helps.

richard verney says: August 11, 2014 at 2:19 am
“In late 2009 when Climategate broke, the BBC endeavoured to shore up the science and basic physics upon which AGW is based.
It ran the bottle experiment as proof of the soundiness of AGW.”

Well, this paper predates even that.
richardscourtney says:
“With a little thought you could have noticed that the paper predating the “faked experiment” of Gore and Nye makes their “experiment” even more egregious.”

Well, it doesn’t say anything about Gore/Nye. And it is a different configuration. Wagoner et al had a thermometer at the bottom, and said the warming was due to density stratification stabilizing a temperature gradient making the temperature hotter at the bottom than the top. That wasn’t the arrangement in Gore/Nye.
“Blast! I activated one of those ridiculous stars by accident!”
An angel was guiding your finger.

jmrSudbury

I am going to have to go back and watch the Myth Busters’ experiment again to see if their CO2/green house gas experiment has the same problem. I also wonder if Svante Arrhenius’ experiment had better controls. — John M Reynolds

Nick Stokes, are you claiming that the Al Gore, Bill Nye experiment is an accurate representation of the AGW CO2 effect?
I know that you don’t, so why the misdirection?

richardscourtney

Nick Stokes:
In your post at August 11, 2014 at 2:42 am you say

richardscourtney says:

“With a little thought you could have noticed that the paper predating the “faked experiment” of Gore and Nye makes their “experiment” even more egregious.”

Well, it doesn’t say anything about Gore/Nye. And it is a different configuration. Wagoner et al had a thermometer at the bottom, and said the warming was due to density stratification stabilizing a temperature gradient making the temperature hotter at the bottom than the top. That wasn’t the arrangement in Gore/Nye.

Good grief, man! Please try to get a grip on reality.
There were a series of fake ‘global warming in a bottle demonstrations’.
Trivial differences between the demonstrations don’t alter the fact that the paper predating them explains they are fakes.
It is the fakery which matters and NOT minor differences between the fakes.
Richard

Bair Polaire

I’m still looking for a class room experiment demonstrating CO2 induced radiative warming of the surface of a rotating water planet with clouds, lit from just one side, floating in cold space.
I’m afraid the case is not made that this is even happening in reality.
So far my best analogy of the CO2 effect is this: Imagine a clear night. You stand with your car on a cliff with your headlights on. You see nothing, not even that the lights are on. Then comes some fog. The more fog, the more you see the reflected light of your headlights.

rogerknights

Bye, Nil

mikeishere

What if … I were to build a ~15ft long insulated and sealed box, (aluminum foiled isocyanate board) and positioned it vertically with an LIR emitter simulating warm dirt, (plate of rusty metal heated to say 200 degrees F) inside at the top. I think having the heat at the top would eliminate convective action. At the bottom end have window (made of salt or is there a more practical material?) to allow the IR out and pointed at a consistently cool black body surface on the floor. Instead of argon, just compare ordinary air against the same with a lot more CO2. Measure the gas temperature at the top and bottom over time, regulate the emitter to stay at the same temperature continuously.
According to GHG theory the one with more CO2 should have a higher gas temperature at the top compared to the one with plain air. (I’m really not certain what to expect as a difference at the bottom?) Say the difference in concentration was 256X ( an 8X doubling = ~ 10% concentration) versus normal air. Would the expected amount of difference in the top gas temperature per GHG theory be large enough to measure with ordinary temperature sensors?

richardscourtney says: August 11, 2014 at 3:11 am
“Good grief, man! Please try to get a grip on reality.”

I’m not a fan of these experiments. They don’t tell us anything new about the radiative properties of CO2, which have been known since Tyndall. And they don’t show what happens in the atmosphere, where there is a multi-km scale and a vital interaction with the lapse rate. You can’t show that in a bottle.
But whatever the faults of the Gore/Nye demo, this Wagoner paper isn’t telling us anything new about them.

Greg

Bair Polaire says:
So far my best analogy of the CO2 effect is this: Imagine a clear night. You stand with your car on a cliff with your headlights on. You see nothing, not even that the lights are on. Then comes some fog. The more fog, the more you see the reflected light of your headlights.
That’s scatter, not absorption and re-emission.