Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised
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:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/video/climate-101-bill-nye
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. 
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:
====================================================
BILL OF MATERIALS
QTY 2 Anchor Hocking Cookie Jar with Lid
http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=187543
QTY2 Geratherm Oral Thermometer Non-Mercury http://www.pocketnurse.com/Geratherm-Oral-Thermometer-Non-Mercury/productinfo/06-74-5826/
QTY 2 Globe Coin Bank
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150661053386
QTY 2 Fluker`s Repta Clamp-Lamp with Ceramic Sockets for Terrariums (max 150 watts, 8 1/2 Inch Bulb) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fluker-s-Repta-Clamp-Lamp-150-watts-8-1-2-Inch-Bulb-/200663082632
QTY2 Zoo Med Red Infrared Heat Lamp 100W
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200594870618
QTY1 Empire – Pure Energy – Aluminum Co2 Tank – 20 oz
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190563856367
QTY 1 RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter
http://www.rap4.com/store/paintball/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.
===================================================
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.
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:
RESULTS:
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.
RESULTS:
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.
- As we know, the Climate101 video used infrared heat lamps
- 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.
- During the experiments, I showed the glass jars heating up using the infrared camera. Clearly they were absorbing the infrared energy from the lamps.
- 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.
- 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.
- The difference value of 2°F shown in the Climate 101 video split screen was never met in any of the experiments I performed.
- 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.
- 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




![greenhouseeffects[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/greenhouseeffects1.jpg?resize=400%2C459&quality=83)












Al Gore is a greedy power-mad narcissistic attention whore, and Bill Nye is a senile fool with anger issues. Nuff said.
…whose entire bona fides are a BS in engineering. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, not qualified to speak on the subject of climatology as if he were some sort of authority. Almost forgot to mention it. Gore of course falls far short of even that: a BS in “government“. By his own admission, spent most of his university career getiting stoned and playing billiards. In other words, a useless kneejerk-Marxist trust fund kid from the cradle.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that alarmists love to whine about how The Man is behind skepticism? Gore IS The Man, dummies!
Come on now. If you can’t trust a politician-turned-investment banker who’s making hundreds of millions of dollars for his fund by lobbying the government, who can you trust?
Surely, Mr.Watts performed an excellent work. Remarks about the influence of IR-radiation absorption by glass do not cancel the main conclusion: under the same conditions air is heated more than carbon dioxide. Only to explain this fact I would suggest using the simple heat capacity formula instead of thermal conductivity.
Both vessels contain equal volumes (equal number of moles) of gases, so molar heat capacity C is used in the formula q = n*C*dT (q – amount of heat, n – number if moles, dT – the difference between final and initial temperature in the vessel). As values of q, n, and initial temperature in both cases are the same, so C and dT are inversely proportional.
Indeed, the values of C for air and CO2 are 29.3 and 37.1 J/(mol *K), respectively. Quantitative calculation from the experimental data is impossible, because in this experiment one can not determine amount of heat absorbed by the gas only. Nevertheless, qualitative prediction is correct: dT value for CO2 is less than for the air, according to the heat capacity formula.
It seems that in a similar experiment with methane (C = 35.6) temperature would be slightly higher than in CO2 vessel, but less than in the air containing vessel.
I can not imagine how these results can be reconciled with the theory of absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases and radiative forcing values.
The understanding of the most basic physics is pathetic all around .
It’s virtually impossible to get understanding of or agreement on even the calculation of radiative equilibrium for arbitrary spectra — a straight forward generalization of the “255K , 33c GHG” meme . Nor is it possible to find any decently designed quantitative experimental test of the equations — definitely doable at the high school level .
And that calculation alone , combined with the Divergence Theorem , admittedly 2nd year calculus , is enough to disprove the GHG hypothesis .
Couple of points about this:
Firstly, experiments using pure CO2 in a tube or jar tell us nothing about the effect of fractional percentages, because the infrared spectra are very different at high concentrations. You can easily show this with MODTRAN.
Secondly, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xyb2lPcyT0
speaks volumes about Bill Nye’s actual cred as a scientist. When asked about COLD fusion he refers to hot fusion devices such as the Farnsworth Fusor. as if he doesn’t understand the difference. Worse, it becomes clear that he thinks hot fusion is done by whacking neutrons together. Or, something.
Now, nobody’s saying that every scientist should understand every field, but the reputable scientist says, “I don’t know” when faced with a question outside of his remit.
Yup – You’re right Trevor, and I’m glad of it. No seeds were lost, and I will admit that, with the flurry of alarming reports that happened all at once I, like many others, believed for a while the worst had happened when in fact the seeds were OK – and I’m not ashamed to admit I was taken in by the reporting. However if you listen to the scientists working in the seed banks they all acknowledge the accelerated pace of global warming and climate change since the industrial age and see the need for the seed bank as a hedge against a loss of biodiversity due to natural or human causes absolutely and largely including global warming. You wrote that science is never settled. That is not true. After peer reviews have happened and the predictions of the “theory” has proven true, and vast majorities of scientists are in agreement as to the correctness of the predictions, we can say the science is settled. Evolution is settled science. That the earth is not flat is settled science; and the accelerated pace of global warming is also settled science. Of course there are cycles of cooling and warming but that is not challenged by global warming predicitions – The long term trends are what’s important. Jim Inhoff holding a snowball in February does not disprove global warming. If you want to cherry pick instances to prove a point he might have also noted that the north poll has been undergoing bizarrely high temperatures often reaching something like 35 degrees F above normal – in the winter. But no single instance makes the point – the overall trends tell the real story. We cannot say that Hurricane Maria was caused by global warming but we can say that more and higher energy hurricanes are consistent with predictions of global warming. We cannot say that the California fires and drought was directly caused by global warming, but we can say that extreme droughts and wildfires are an example of what’s predicted to happen as Earth’s atmosphere and oceans warm. Concrete actions are being taken all over the world in response to rising seas, changing planting zones, etc. Exxon knew about global warming long ago but never admitted to it until recently. And the killer is that the cost of responding to all these extreme events is off the charts and is predicted to continue in a similar fashion. Everything that can be done to slow the pace of global warming should be done and all this quibbling should have ended long ago.
But each of your claims is wrong – in detail and in extrapolation.
The actual average global temperature is now 1/4 of one degree warmer than in 1970.
Actual hurricane activity is LESS than all recorded decades.
CO2 has been higher in the past, when subsequent temperatures were lower.
Long term warm cycles have been decreasing since 6000 BC, and today’s temperatures are not quite as warm as between 1100-1300.
Glaciers are retreating, but that retreat is exposing trees and buildings and rocks and graves previously exposed – so glacier retreat is NOT unusual nor unprecedented.
Your predictions of harm ignore the benefits of fossil fuels, the growth due to warmer temperatures and greater CO2 levels, and the billions of lives threatened by artificial restrictions of energy and artificially-forced high energy prices.
The “costs” trying to limit “global warming” by restricting CO2 are billions of (deliberate) innocent deaths.
And I would say the same thing about the claims you have just now made. First, 1/4 degree is a lot when you are talking global temperature, and it happens to more the 1/4 degree since 1970, but again – it is the trend that is important: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php (Who to believe NASA or RACook…) – Rebuting these statements individually with good references to real science takes time, which is precisely the problem with these kind of unsubstantiated claims. The idea is to sound convincing, and it kind of does in a self righteous kind of way, but at the end of the day saying that trying to restrict CO2 will cost billions of lives is just unbelievably silly and deliberately extreme and should make the reader question the rest of what you say. (Yeah – solar panels and windmills will not only cause more damage than coal power plants, but will kill billions of people??) It takes a second to tell a lie, and a minute to prove it’s a lie so math is against the truth. Some posters here attempt to answer honestly but overall it’s too much of drain on peoples time to be refuting this stuff all the time. So if you are in the least curious to find some semblance of the truth with regard to the effects of global warming it’s simple – look for it elsewhere. This WordPress column has become a magnet for disinformation.
Hello Robert Korb………Glad to see that you “CON-SEED-ED” that point about the calamitous inundation
of the seed bank at Svalbad that NEVER OCCURRED !
You THEN mucked-up your concession by stating ” We cannot say……” and then GOING ON AND SAYING IT …………………….,many times …………as though THAT proves anything !? Pure speculation !
Did you MISS the bit about the BREVITY of THIS warm period , this wonderful interglacial that has allowed
human civilisation to FLOURISH and to which you owe your very existance ?
It started 20,000 years ago !! Just what coal-fired-power-station OR SUV caused THAT do you think !?
When this (geologically speaking ) BRIEF interglacial terminates the PLANET EARTH will again be stuck
with the ICE-AGE consequences………………like permanent Winter……………grey skies …….no crops………
no fodder……………few animals ! And THEN the CO2 levels WILL DECLINE again , probably !
Oh yes ! With ALL THAT WATER locked up in ICE the SEA-LEVEL will drop and the few survivors will be
able to again cross the land bridges to the few habitable parts of the planet. ( The tropics perhaps ? )
Oh Happy Day !! Then THE SURVIVORS will hang-on until the next interglacial WARM PERIOD.
Not a pretty picture is it !………………………… Very little survives or prospers during an ice-age !
IF burning carbon-based fuels DOES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING………..and I REPEAT……….IF…………
then WE ,
as responsible humans having a duty of care and consideration to our DESCENDANTS AND to the ENTIRE PLANET ,
SHOULD be burning all the stuff we can get our hands on TO PROLONG THIS INTERGLACIAL PERIOD
and preserve ALL the existing life-forms and their present habitats ………..wouldn’t YOU AGREE ?
IF NOT ……..WHY NOT ? RSVP
Regards , Trevor.
Well done , you have exposed Al Gore and the fact that as far as I know, he has never admitted this, nor has he apologised for knowingly and deliberately misleading those who took him at his word. Furthermore, this attitude from Al Gore shows he is prepared to continue misleading the public and government officials, all at great cost to taxpayers. He should be publicly censured for his deliberate misleading using faked science to further his economic interest at the expense of scientific truth.
The experiment works just fine if the bottles are plastic rather than glass.
Al Gore is not misleading the public or anyone else. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the earth to warm. Even if we stopped using fossil fuels today, the temperature will continue to climb for several years. If we continue to relase CO2 at the current rate or even faster, the temperature will continue to rise until the positive feedback mechanisms kick in. There are two that are really scary.
The first is the thawing of the permafrost. Permafrost included hundreds of thousands of square miles of dead mosses and other matter. Each year for tens of thousands of years a small amount of this material is added to the deep freeze as the surface mat dies and is covered by new plants. If this thaws,it will rot and release billions of tons of Methane. Methane is worse than CO2 as it blocks a IR window in the atmospheric gasses. It oxidizes in the atmosphere turning to CO2 and water. Once this source of Methane and CO2 reaches a lever that, by itself, releases greenhouse gasses at a rate that would sustain the rise in CO2 without us, we no longer have any options for controlling the planet’s temperature.
The second is the sub-sea deposits of methane hydrates. This material is created by rotting material that settles to the sea bottom, often at river deltas, and produces methane. If the temperature is low enough and the pressure is high enough methane combines with water to form a kind of methane rich ice. If the temperature increases (if the water temperature increases) or the pressure drops, hydrates dissociate and methane is released explosively. Some people think this is the mechanism that causes ships and planes to disappear in the Bermuda Triangle. Since the oceans are warming faster than the land, this could start to produce enormous amounts of methane. As with permafrost, methane hydrates have the potential to take our fate out of our hands.
Please provide data with references; you simply pontificate.
Nobody is saying that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, and nobody doubts that increased atmospheric CO is causing the earth to warm. What the experiment shows is that the world’s leading CAGW alarmists have the bent ethics that make them perfectly willing to fake the science to demonstrate a false proof.
It was interesting to see Fourier’s retrial of de Saussure’s earlier work along the same lines of thinking carried out yet again. I have also done such trials, each time realizing some component that failed to properly simulate an open atmosphere, each time finding no average difference.
Of course, the core failure is the container itself, as Fourier himself recognized. I am indebted to Mr. Timothy Casey of Australia for presenting translations of Fourier’s papers http://geologist-1011.net/net/greenhouse/
Casey reports, “…[Fourier] actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).”
Thus Fourier himself debunks the notion of the hotbox/greenhouse so popular today (Mann’s Feb 2018 convocation in Australia continues his misuse of Fourier’s “authority” to justify the “greenhouse” effect). It is thus not true that the science has been known for 200 years. It has never been “known”.
There are many potential segues. For example, if CO2 had the properties imputed by AGW/IPCC, the practical value to home insulation would have become a commercial product by now. But, I digress.
The real point of any theory of global warming, including the reality, is to explain why the Earth does not cool substantially overnight, when no solar radiation could warm what it can’t fall on. In this regard, heat capacity, not heat transfer rate, is the telling factor. An analysis of Earth’s average temperature using hard-core physics was prepared as The U.S. Standard Atmosphere (USSA)(1962, 1966, 1976). Here is the 1976 edition http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a035728.pdf It is dense with physics, not for light bed-time reading, 240pp long, and completely transparent in methodology. There are no secret model steps.
In short, the average temperature of the Earth is primarily the result of incoming solar radiation’s warming water on and in the ground, converting water to vapor, warming the vapor/air mix so it expands and rises (“adiabats”) until the vapor cools and condenses, returning as precipitation to close the cycle. Thermal transfer by well-known processes distribute the warmth so the whole atmosphere is warmed. Work done by the expansion and rising is a key process. Carbon dioxide plays no role and is relegated to the status of “trace gases”.
Several points of interest:
1. In stark contradiction of the frequent assertion that CO2 and other non-condensing gases are the reason the planet is warm, USSA shows that it is the condensing gas water vapor that enables global warming, a completely normal process on this planet.
2. Using the ideas of USSA, one can calculate the impact of 410 ppmv CO2 on temperature: 0.014K This is smaller than the variance of the global averages. Other trace gases (methane, eg) have even smaller effects, and explains their status.
3. The USSA is not climate predictive, as has been noted as an objection by some. I note it here to avoid the argument. Only stock market touts try to claim prediction based on past performance even while making the disclaimer.
There is much more to be said about the whole topic, just about the science, but there’s tomorrow…
since we all know plants need Co2. And the higher in elevation the air gets thinner. Tree and other plants can only grow to a certain elevation depending on how close you are to the equator. Would we see “treelines” rising in elevation?
side note: I grow cannabis indoors and supplement Co2. I have to raise the temp a few degrees to maximize Co2 absorption. If Co2 amounts are driven by warming, not warming driven by Co2. Plant life would then absorb more Co2 leading to faster, bigger, healthier plants? Would that explain why more plant life is located at and near the equator? Does the planet self-regulate, no matter what, to keep that balance to sustain life? I would think so but I’m just an observing commoner that has no background in science……er… besides my indoor growing hobby.
hopefully, you could answer or corroborate my ideas, Thanks.
It is nice to see someone putting in the time to keep science honest. It has been 7 years, and people like me have just discovered it. Good job. Thank you for your work.
I’m not a scientist, though I believe facts are the best way to reveal truths. I’ve watched the battle over climate change now for 40 years. Neither side proving irrefutable proof.
One thing I do know at 65 yrs old. Money is the prime driver of ALL policy. Why would a very wealthy group of the worlds powerful promote a scenario of catastrophe? Especially when their wealth has largely been generated by policies that are allegedly creating the “coming catastrophe”?
If you turn back to the early 60’s (and probably somewhat earlier) there was a growing concern over the improving conditions of the common man. Presidents Kennedy, Carter and especially Reagan raised concerns about the growing wealth of Americas “common man”. Henry Kissinger held the masses in outright disgust. Alan Greenspan went so far as to say; it is not good for the common man to have wealth (paraphrasing).
The US dollar was uncoupled from gold in the mid sixties. Possession of gold in America was even banned during the transition (though loopholes no doubt existed for the wealthiest Americans). Rampant inflation during the next decade arguably damaged the wealth of Americans. Reaganomics damaged most unions and follow up laws further stripped workers rights. Trickle down economics took jobs overseas crippling the wage structure thru unemployment of workers. This continues today with China now slowing growth in favor of other third world countries. Consider also the 11 million illegal immigrants that entered from Mexico thanks to Naftas’ disruption of Mexican agriculture to favor the big 3 American agra giants. The results of this further suppressed the living standard in America thru unemployment and lower wages. The rise of runaway capitalism in the medical fields is another example of the burdens now born by the working class. All the while giant tax concessions are made to the wealthiest. I could go on but the message is clear. The worlds workers will be deprived of the fruits of their labors.
Consider now the unrest beginning to show in America and most other developed countries. If the policies now at work in the world are to continue, there MUST be believable reasons for the continued attack on the masses living standards. I cannot think of a better means of further enslavement than “you’ll all die in a horrible greenhouse hell. Here’s the “Facts” folks. “You now know what you have to do”. It’s very similar to the Church’s stranglehold of western civilization during the dark ages.
“So you see”. “It is necessary for you to forgo; your car, home. hobbies, freedom, health, values and anything else WE as the elite deem you must give up”. “Along the way, we’ll supply you with all the “needed proof” of why this must be. I see the “Climate Change” as the biggest fraud ever foisted on the world. Climate change is the weapon that will be used for the continued domination and enslavement of the worlds peoples.
A lot to swallow. Yes. Conspiracy? Never. There’s no such thing as a conspiracy. Can I prove this? YES. To the same degree Climate Change can be Proven….
I totally agree with you on the concept of money driven stories. Al gore invented a story about global warming when he saw that the globe was warming and then invested in the recommended companies that provided “solutions.”… He made millions…
The errors in Nye’s “experiment” are profound and farcical. First off, CO2 released from a tank would be Cooled as it experiences a pressure drop. Secondly, heat lamps put out visible light, not infrared. If you can see it, and it is plainly visible in the video, it is Not infrared.
Thirdly, you put a heat lamp over a thermometer, the thermometer will heat up. Exactly how much will be determined by just how far away from the lamp it is.
Fourthly, the commenter who stated the temperature range at which 15-micron radiation is released is correct. It is around -80 C.
Nye is an embarrassment to all real Mechanical Engineers.
Well done repeating the experiment and invalidating the results.
I don’t think the experiment tells us much about the degree of CO2 induced climate warming, but it sure tells us a lot about Nye and Gore.
Doesn’t Nye’s test use pure CO2? i.e. 1,000,000 ppm?
Whereas these tests seem to show ~700ppm?
I did the same experiment and came up with the same results as you. Earlier I was hoping to make several of these climate change experiment kits and use them in our middle school science classes. I received permission from the superintendent and got lots of folks excited about this possibility. Now that they don’t work, I’m an embarrassed Ph.D.Engineer. However, it seems like we might still be able to use the setup demonstrate some heat transfer characteristics. How about we collaborate on making a set of climate experiments that work with this hardware (e.g. reflectivity of paper globe and albedo)? I have some climate science friends who could help too.
Of course they work. If you mean that they don’t prove what you wanted them to prove, they still work.
I looked over a number of these comments and read a fair number but I did not see any mention of the elephant in the living room. There simply is no such thing as a global mean temperature. The wildly varying local conditions producing very different temperatures which fluctuate by the minute or by very short distances or by slight change in elevation not to mention time of day (or night) or a multitude of other factors. The “global surface temperature record” we all know is derived from thermometers mostly in the U.S. and a few other countries which cover a small fraction of the earth’s surface. As poor a record as that ever was it is now made only worse by alarmists “corrections”. Bjarne Andresen, from the University of Copenhagen has recently researched the validity of the entire notion of a “global mean temperature” Someone amusingly equated it to the average telephone number in a phone book. There is just too much local variation with no way to reconcile for area sampled and so on.
I too chuckled out loud at the “average telephone number” quip!
the dialog is interesting yet as a physicist and mathematician i have never seen anyone actually do the calculation on reemittance as a function of density with altitude. Specifically for any given C02 molecule there will always be MORE molecules below it than above it. As already acknowledged each molecule when hit with a photon will reradiate it in SOME direction. But on a macro basis UP is more transparent than down because there are fewer molecules in the way. Somebody should be able to mathematically demonstrate virtually all the photons are ultimately reradiated away from earth.
Wouldn’t the calculation simply be a ratio of medium densities multiplied by the initial heat flux?
Good work, Anthony. I believe I debated with someone a few years ago about this who was hired to test the validity of these experiments. I was a staunch supporter if climate change, still am, though more moderate. And I liked your conclusion qualifying the results. You followed the scientific process and presented evidence in the contrary. The message “DO NOT LIE NOR FABRICATE BASED ON BIASED ASSUMPTIONS/FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS” is a very good one to send people in maintaining the integrity of the scientific method. Had they performed the experiment with UV or visible lamps, the results would have likely been different as they had predicted.
I accept the experiment is all about trying to show differences but CO2 being heavier than air will have purged all the air from the CO2 container, so you are comparing two different atmospheres, one of air and one of pure CO2. The CDC quote a number of 1% – 3% (10,000 -30,000)ppm of CO2 has having few if any harmful effects, OHSA give a TLV-TWA (threshold limit value- time weighted average) exposure limit of 5,000 ppm, which is also the NASA number, I think the US Navy number is 8,000 ppm. It would be interesting to see what the difference is, if any, at say 1% CO2.
You deserve a medal for that. Maybe even a Nobel prize!
Well done. What attention to detail and what patience, particularly after exposing the fake Gore experiment, which would have been enough for me. Resorting to such fabrications doesn’t exactly fill one with faith in the truth of anything else the man is claiming.
Never mind the simple fact that our planet is not covered in glass.
Lieber Sinnesgenosse! Alles OK! Nur würde ich raten “Bekitzer!”,was im Jiddisch “mach doch kurzen Prozess” bedeutet. Jedoch einen ganz groben Fehler wurde mit dem Bild des Gewächshauses gemacht!! die Erwärmung eines Gewächshauses erfolgt in einer prinzipiell anderen Art und Weise!! Es ist keine Strahlung welche die Temperatur unter dem Glassdach bildet!’ Das Glassdach hat nur die Aufgabe keinen Austausch mit der Aussen Luft zu gestatten! Die Wärme wird den Pflanzen mit der im inneren aufgewärmten Luft zugeführt sowie das zur Photosyntese notwendige Licht durch das durchsichtige Glas zugeleitet. Die Innenluft erwärmt sich vond der inneren Erde oder und einer inneren Wärmequelle sowie an allen Gegensänden im Inneren, welche von der komplexen Strahlung der Sonne getroffen werden. In wiefern die Luft die excellente Fähigkeit hat die Wärme in Folge des Kontaktes am Boden. oder am Boden befindlichen Heizelementen aufzusteigen und gleichmāssig im ganzen Inneren zu verteilen. Durch diese Konvexion wird auch den Pflanzen der winzige Anteil des notwendigen CO2 zugeführt. Diese unsinnige Berufung auf STRAHLUNGEN, welche dauernd in allen Lügen der Klimabesessene verwendet wird, sollte man nach Möglichkeit meiden! Dr. Phys. Johann Danos. Unterschreiber der Petition der EIKE an den Bundestag.
http://google.co.kr/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fbuyigcomments.net/
Covid: What is self-isolation and who has to do it?
When do I need to self-isolate?
You should self-isolate if:
• You have Covid symptoms – a new continuous cough, high temperature, or change in sense of taste or smell
• You test positive for Covid-19
• You live with someone who has symptoms, or is ill
• You arrive in the UK from one of a number of countries which aren’t exempt from quarantine rules
• You are contacted by NHS Test and Trace to say you have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive
Check more updates on – https://dailyuknews.com/