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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
Bill Nye @TheScienceLie
Al Gore’s Climate “Reality” : the reality is that it’s a lie. A very successful one.
@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’ 😉
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Greg:
At August 11, 2014 at 2:04 am you say
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
Blast! I activated one of those ridiculous stars by accident!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Nick Stokes:
In your post at August 11, 2014 at 2:42 am you say
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
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.
Bye, Nil
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.
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.