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 late 2009 someone suggested I look at an NOAA page describing this Gore/Nye experiment. This page had been online since at least 2005. The NOAA page describes not a real experiment, but an absurd endeavor and to demonstrate so I had a class of physics students recreate it. All sorts of outcomes are possible because noise dominates the whole project. WUWT at the time linked to my brief report about our version of the experiment.
In principle the experiment could show the effect that GORE/NYE/NOAA/BBC all intended to show. The thermometer embedded in a bottle of CO2 reaches an equilibrium temperature by absorbing SW radiation from the lamp and emitting LW radiation from its surface in addition to convection. As any mechanical engineer can attest CO2 will influence radiative transfer in enclosures like furnaces and boilers, and should also then in a plastic bottle. However the bottle is so limited in size that the actual experiment becomes dominates by other influences and is a silly exercise in scientism. It has to be faked to get the expected results.
Darn. “S” is next to “d” on a keyboard and so “dominates” should have been “dominated” in my prior post.
If Bill Nye wanted us to hunt deer then here is the experiment he would do. He’d get a 10 ft x 10 ft pen and place one deer in it and show how it can move around freely, then in the pen next to it he would jam in as many deer as he could and say look they can’t even move. Bill Nye the propaganda guy would then say ‘this is why we must hunt deer because if we don’t they will overpopulate the earth and it will be catastrophic for all living thigs to move.’ Then we’d get Nick Stokes on here telling us how Nye’s experiment was different than other deer experiments and therefore not discredited.
Greg says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:26 am
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.
//////////////////////////
And this is one of the problems with the K&T energy budget cartoon: See http://principia-scientific.org/images/KT_Earth_Energy_Budget_Fig3.jpg
In that budget/cartoon, all reflected solar goes directly out to space. But we know that that does not happen. Some of this is re-reflected back to the surface from the underside of clouds (thats why it is light before sun up, and why it is not pitch black even when very dark rain filled clouds pass overhead; there is scatter and re-reflection). .
Approximately one quarter of incoming solar is reflected off the top of clouds and goes back up to space, one would therefore expect to see a broadly similar amount of reflected from surface solar being re-reflected from the underside of clouds back to the surface.
Whilst the figure involved about 7w/msq is not large, failing to take this into account, means that the budget does not balance! When a budget does not balance, there are problems!
Nick,
Do you do this for exercise, or is there some point worth noting behind the distinction you’re making?
Such propaganda seems to migrate to schools more often than to other parts of society. I suppose the activist preachers are also free of revision in that process. Only the next round of innocent victims get a chance at message reform or replacement, if any.
Nick Stokes, one of the apologist blokes.
It makes you wonder how Mao’s Cultural Revolution was presented to young children in schools at the time. It took at least one generation for that social science policy fad to pass out of favor. And without official sanction for any criticism for it or Tienanmen Square, families are left with slow generational adjustment in place of apologies. It is a measure of party power and control.
In other areas of science faking the results of an experiment would be a scandal and the author’s reputations would be ruined but in climate science this behavior seems to be acceptable. That’s something I don’t understand.
No way! Wrong Way Nye? The same guy who has the trade winds blowing from West to East (with a fan sitting just off the map in what would be the Pacific Ocean blowing towards California)? That guy? No way!
See 7 minutes in.
Aphan writes “Anthony, you said “not even wrong” instead of “not even right” on basic physics in your conclusion. :)”
Others have given the background for the phrase but I though I might have a go at giving a “not even wrong” example.
I postulate that the moon takes on a yellow tinge on nights where the sunlight reflects off the cheese at a particular angle.
If I were to take two bell jars and fill one with air and the other with CO2 and then proceed to add heat at the same rate to each; I would see the CO2 warm faster due to it’s having a specific heat of about .8.
Resourceguy says: “Such propaganda seems to migrate to schools more often than to other parts of society.”
That is because we have to many Teachers who do not have the Intelligence and the Education to be instructing. Our failed Education is self replicating.
Which is even more damning because they were wrong the moment they thought up the experiment. 😉 I think the paper written “on it” is about that type of experiment? It doesn’t really matter, they are wrong.
In 1896 Arrhenius estimated that a halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4-5°C and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5-6°C. In his 1906 publication Arrhenius adjusted this value down to 1.6°C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1°C).
Recent estimates from IPCC (2007) say this value (the Climate Sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5°C. But Sherwood Idso in 1998 calculated the Climate Sensitivity to be 0.4°C, and more recently Richard Lindzen at 0.5°C. Roy Spencer calculated 1.3°C in 2011.
+10000000000000000000
You need to understand that Nick Stokes is a climate modeler.
‘
Or in Nick’s case….
According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?
I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.
From The IPCC AR5 – First impressions (Nir Shaviv. ScienceBits, 2013-10-02)
See http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions
It is telling us they didn’t do their homework before performing a fraudulent demonstration. It is one of those “what we learn from history…” things.
And probably 100,000 classrooms got the same demonstration from their teachers.
SMS says:
August 11, 2014 at 7:38 am
If I were to take two bell jars and fill one with air and the other with CO2 and then proceed to add heat at the same rate to each; I would see the CO2 warm faster due to it’s having a specific heat of about .8.
=========
That should be repeated.
Also the specific heat of dry air is ~1 for comparison and water vapor is around 1.8
We really should be measuring the energy in the system.
Ralph Kramden says:
August 11, 2014 at 7:06 am
“In other areas of science faking the results of an experiment would be a scandal and the author’s reputations would be ruined but in climate science this behavior seems to be acceptable. That’s something I don’t understand.”
—————–
Given a fake world with fake science wanting to believe in fairy tales with the white knights in shining armour charging to save the world who cares about facts and reputation.
Ask Mann et al and a host of climatologists or bedfellows like Lewandowsky. Why worry about reputation when you have the Pres of USA, PM of the UK, the UN and a host of stuffy institutes and nations nodding in robotic unison.
You can be part of the mob feted to greatness; just mouth the words “climate change.” If the bread on my table depended on it I guess I would be singing from the same song sheet too. Would anyone willingly jump off that band-waggon?
Welcome to Alice and Wonderland. Science, now that is a pretty word; wonder what it means.
In all this period I still don’t know what is the clear, falsifiable, repeatable, quantifiable hypothesis of CAGW. They have been at it for over 150 years; the Cheshire cat just disappears.
SMS “If I were to take two bell jars and fill one with air and the other with CO2 and then proceed to add heat at the same rate to each; I would see the CO2 warm faster due to it’s having a specific heat of about .8”
That’s interesting. I would have thought that the carbon dioxide’s temperature would rise more slowly because its number of joules per mole per kelvin is almost half again that of air. What have I missed?
It’s not even wrong because the results are correct, of course they were not demonstrating what they claimed to be demonstrating because they didn’t understand what they were actually doing, but that’s another story entirely and ought to be rather embarrassing to Nye since he claims to be a scientist …one could expect it of Gore because he’s a science incompetent.
SMS says:
August 11, 2014 at 7:38 am
If I were to take two bell jars and fill one with air and the other with CO2 and then proceed to add heat at the same rate to each; I would see the CO2 warm faster due to it’s having a specific heat of about .8.
————–
Argon’s mass heat capacity is about 0.5. The experiment used Ar as a comparison so it would make it even more confusing as both behaved similarly.
No, it’s easy. The experiment is fake but the results are real is the underlying principle of the climate models.