Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

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.

difference process run at full resolution – click to enlarge

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

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

His specific claim was:

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

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

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

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

…and at 1:10 in the video Nye says:

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

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

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

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

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

====================================================

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.

carbon dioxide temperature humidity monitorData Sheet

===================================================

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

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

==============================================================

STEP 1 Calibrate the Oral Thermometers

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

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

STEP 2 Calibrate the Infrared Thermometer

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

==============================================================

STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using  the Infrared Thermometer

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

Image from: greenhousesonline.com.au

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.

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

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

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

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

Gore FAIL.

=============================================================

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

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

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.5 26 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
395 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard b
August 2, 2016 10:27 pm

whoopee….I’m going out to fire up my old polluting diesel pick up and while I’m about it I’ll also chop down the forest at the bottom of my property.
thanks guys, for saving my conscience.

August 3, 2016 6:08 pm

the CO2 jar ‘led’ each time, because your experiment never reached steady state.
The ‘radiative forcing’ models used to justify CO2 being a greenhouse gas are all special cases, in which ‘steady state’, or “complete saturation of the available energy states in CO2 gas” is reached.
At that point, CO2 is indeed a warming gas, since it can no longer absorb thermal energy, and will be pushing energy into other molecules.
Before the steady state is reached, CO2 is cooling the atmosphere, absorbing kinetic energy from other gas molecules and reradiating as thermal energy (shifting the wavelength in the process). It is operating as it does in the thermosphere, where NASA acknowledges it is ‘the most efficient cooling gas”.
It is only when fully saturated that CO2 warms.
None of the ClimateAngst models use anything other than steady state analysis – because working with changing energy states is mathematically hard. Even when considering the diurnal nature of the earth, they translate it to dim sunlight and retreat to the simplicity of the steady state again.
CO2 is a net cooling gas, as you proved. Only in areas with lots of incoming energy, and large land masses adding a lot of thermal input will saturation of the CO2 occur, and warming. Which is why we see a few ‘hotspots’ in such places, and enhanced cooling over ice and forests.

anthony Capranica
August 4, 2016 6:22 am

Everyone with an interest in climate change should read the most thorough thesis on this whole issue written by Tscheuschner and Gerlich, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” , available for free on the internet. It is a difficult paper by two physicists with expertise in thermodynamics and thermodynamic modeling. If the physics and math boggles your mind, just go to the conclusions starting on page 90 (yes, this work is 115 pages). It also contains valuable and perceptive comments on climate science and climate modeling
This is a part of the conclusion.
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a “mirage” [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example is the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example is the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones

King
September 2, 2016 8:31 am

What happens when you fill each jar half way with water and run the same experiment ?

Wendy
September 13, 2016 12:02 pm

Should the experiment work if you use plastic bottles and a non IR light as shown in these videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I (Myth Busters)
If not are there any conditions that would make it work?
Thanks!
Wendy

Reply to  Wendy
February 2, 2017 3:00 pm

The actual issue here is the displacement of the normal inert 78% concentration of nitrogen and 21% of oxygen with possibly 50% of reactive CO2, a multiple of 2,500 times normal. Even Bernard Madoff would be too embarrassed to run a con as shallow as this.

Peter Klopfenstein
October 4, 2016 4:25 pm

Since the beginning of the Global Warming Ideology and that we were being dictated their alleged science and not following the normal peer review process that science follows to validate new research. That in itself was highly suspect to begin with. In other words it was a one way conversation much as propaganda is presented, not science. Since that was obvious I became the enemy of what was in reality climate ideology.

Oscar Unger
October 30, 2016 6:56 am

Climaters: can’t live with them; could live without them. While it’s not a science, I am pretty sure that it could be proven if there was a viable experiment available.

November 16, 2016 10:56 pm

The Nye/Gore experiment measures temperature changes due to CO2’s 20% smaller than air heat conductivity and specific heat; they are related properties. Nothing to do with greenhouse effect. Pure CO2 should not have been used, as that’s never going to happen and distorts the results. It’s more realistic and still over the top, but easily obtainable human breath (5% CO2) could have been used and would have distorted the specific heat less and so that influence would have been undetectable; there would be no temperature difference measured between the 2 containers, air and 5% CO2/95% air.
Real (Horticultural) greenhouses only raise the temperature maybe less than 10°C, and are well confined by solid walls, yet it is conjectured Earth’s GE is 33°C! Greenhouses often have CO2 pumped into them – as a “fertiliser” – with no noticed temperature effect.
All gases are greenhouse gases. Their atmospheric heat effect is via their Specific Heat, which they all have. It makes no difference how they receive the heat energy from Earth, whether by direct IR, or by conduction and convection from the surface and/or other gases, they all air packets reach the same temperature. That’s the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore the size of the GE depends on the quantity of molecules, ie total pressure, and not just that of the small partial pressure of IR gases. This works out well for the GEs of Venus, Earth and Mars. (AGW cannot account for Mars’ low GE.)
[You can read this and others in more depth than can be accommodated here (probably?), at my site “Planet Earth Climate Topics” at pjcarson2015.wordpress.com]

gzuckier
November 17, 2016 8:07 pm

Although I am one of what may be simplistically considered “the other side” I find I must congratulate you on a well done series of experiments and a well grounded conclusion. I’ve not seen the original which inspired this so I can’t comment on it.
But I do have to say the comments here largely lack equivalent scientific merit, sadly, and not entirely on just one side or the other, either.

Dilton Dalton
November 23, 2016 9:23 pm

If you use a glass container the experiment will fail. Glass absorbs infrared radiation. So you effectively shielded the experiment from infrared and it didn’t work.
See these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Reply to  Dilton Dalton
February 2, 2017 2:51 pm

Overlooked variables
1. The CO2 displaces the relatively 78% nitrogen and 21% concentrations – very big error.
2. The atmospheric additional CO2 only represents an additional 0.02% of the new atmosphere – any remotely accurate experiment and serious scientist could not overlook this aspect.
3. P1 V1 / T1 = P2 V2 / T2 The enclosed environments in these bottles severely distorts any results. Just another BS demo.

November 24, 2016 6:18 pm

Comments on these videos (which are similar to many others).
Video 1 by media geologist Dr Iain Stewart.
Everyone agrees that burning fuels have increased CO2.
Everyone agrees that CO2 absorbs IR.
But ALL gases absorb heat – by convection and conduction. Almost all of the atmosphere’s heat is contained by those gases – in proportion to their quantity – warming the planet surface. CO2’s proportion is tiny; changes in its level are even tinier.
Video 2: The lamp is pointing at the bright CO2 bottle. Surprise! It’s warmer.

November 24, 2016 6:22 pm

Comments on these 2 videos (similar to many others).
Video 1 by media geologist Dr Iain Stewart.
Everyone agrees that burning fuels have increased CO2.
Everyone agrees that CO2 absorbs IR.
But ALL gases absorb heat – by convection and conduction. Almost all of the atmosphere’s heat is contained by those gases – in proportion to their quantity – warming the planet surface. CO2’s proportion is tiny; changes in its level are even tinier.
Video 2: The lamp is pointing at the bright CO2 bottle. Surprise! It’s warmer.

December 3, 2016 5:46 pm

So what type of thermometer should be used to best represent to evaluate accurate temperature long range recordings, where do we place ALL instruments to protect historical recorders and keeping the same spots used for centuries. Lastly who decided witch process will be used while selecting the type of electronic thermometer used and how often calibrations be made to keep variable range acceptance and data eligible for NOAA reporting. Note: All thermometers report different readings over time via evaporation, digitial drift, changes in glass hardness or changes in physical locations. With 1300+ stations moved annually we toss reliability out with each move.
Lastly converting from C to F is not being At the high level of reckoning needed to hold scientific review

December 11, 2016 4:08 pm

Ah, they both provide the rhetoric of some more environmental fiction.

Darvish Blathsnocker
December 29, 2016 3:07 pm

I will not claim to have read all the above,
but:
two heaters in parallel with the same resistance, each in a separate jar, with air in one and CO2 in the other.. and provided = V and A…
will cause the one in CO2 to become hotter, thus demonstrating the issue.
The on-line test was bogus, though it tried to teach a complex system as easily as possible.

Olav Ankjær
Reply to  Darvish Blathsnocker
December 18, 2017 7:05 pm

The On-line test by Gore was a bogus and shows how low physical understanding Gore has. He thus believed that he could prove something by illuminating infrared through glass. And when the attempt did not work (as proven above) he chooses (and those who work with him) to cheat.
Hope you understand that it was the whole point of the above tests regarding the ON-Line experiment, to show that Gore was actually cheating.

co2islife
February 4, 2017 7:28 am

Mr. Watts, Mythbusters did a similar experiment. You may want to replicate your efforts and address that one as well. Here are a few ideas that may help with the project.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/climate-science-on-trial-confirmed-mythbusters-busted-practicing-science-sophistry/comment image?w=639&h=400

marianomarini
February 8, 2017 11:47 am

But if CO2 is the real problem, why not replicate photosynthesis and get Oxygen instead?
Leaving oil fuel is a must (how long can we extract it?), but we can leave it gradually.

bobmunck
February 12, 2017 9:22 am

“This has been proven by using radioactivly labeled H2O feed to the plant”
Nah, the longest-lived unstable isotope of oxygen has a half-life of about two minutes. That means the radioactivity drops by a factor of 10E9 (2E30) in about an hour. You’re not going to get useful readings on a slow chemical reaction from that. It’s likely they used the least-common stable isotope of oxygen and measured not radioactivity but mass.
Plants consume water and carbon dioxide and change them to something else; what does it matter how the oxygen atoms travel through those reactions?

ef
March 13, 2017 9:06 am

Michael Green
June 3, 2017 6:21 am

Im in school. I’m just curious, has the earth actually been warming? or is that data fake? I was told that the ice in greenland didn’t change.

Trevor Ridgway
Reply to  Michael Green
April 15, 2018 11:50 am

Michael Green . You would be WELL ADVISED to read widely and observe closely the opinions expressed
HERE and ELSEWHERE on this highly contentious subject.
The Earth has been gradually warming for the last 20,000 years. Scotland and most of Northern Europe and
North America WAS buried beneath a mile-thick ice cap back then before it SUDDENLY began to warm and
melt the ice. The remnants of this ice can be found in the current POLAR REGIONS and GLACIERS , but bear in mind that EACH YEAR during Winter more ice forms and that this melts again in Summer. The
“alarmists” show you the videos of the glaciers calving ( as they do each Summer ) but they never show you
them RE-FREEZING each Winter because they want to convey the impression that MELTING GLACIERS
are somehow “threatening” and “disastrous” when they are only part of a natural annual cycle.
The Earth has warmed and cooled many times and THE CURRENT WARM PERIOD is occurring as a warm
interval , an INTERGLACIAL in the QUATERNARY ICE AGE , which started about 12,000 years ago.
What this means is that the Earth WILL RETURN TO A FROZEN STATE once the interglacial period ends.
THIS ( freezing ) is a much greater threat to mankind than the tiny amount of warming which has occurred.
The 0.6 or 0.8 degree they mention is ridiculously small and both the rise in temperature and in Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been a BENEFIT to plant life and agriculture world-wide.The planet
has ‘never been greener’ ( well , not for a very long time anyway ! ) . The day-time temperature can vary
10 or 20 degrees and you simply wear more clothing or less clothing and adapt BUT it doesn’t kill you !
Sea-level-rise is the other great furphy ! Sure……it is rising…2 or 3 mm……per year ……..huge threat !
Some places ( Norway for example ) ARE RISING due to the ‘isostatic rebound’ ( the land is no longer
compressed by the weight of the ice which has melted and run into the sea ) by a few mm each year.
In fact ,in 2013 , they adopted a NEW LAND LEVEL as places had risen as much as 40 CENTIMETRES
and they needed to adjust their levels for drainage etc. BET YOU no one told you about RISING LAND
BEFORE NOW !! MOST atolls and small Pacific Islands are also rising !! Depending on their
geology…..some may subside ! Venice is sinking.because the piles it is built on are sinking into the mud.
There is so much emotional rhetoric and political ideology involved in this subject THAT A CLEAR and
CONCISE VIEW is very hard to achieve. Integrity has been sacrificed and just plain lies have been
presented as fact and truth when they are evidently not !
Once someone says to you that “the science is settled ” ( no discussion…….no explanation……..no further
assessment…….nothing ! ) then you KNOW you are being lied to ! NO SCIENCE IS EVER SETTLED.
THAT is the NATURE OF SCIENCE !. It has THEN become POLITICS , sadly !
Please read widely and don’t rely on “public figures” for their popular opinions ( because they are only
saying what they are being paid to say …or promoting yet another video or book ).
I hop that THIS has been of some use to you Michael.
Regards , Trevor Ridgway.

June 20, 2017 8:29 am

Yes Michael. But it is important to choose carefully who you listen to when assessing your sources. My simply saying yes may not be enough (although the earth’s warming is a FACT backed up by satellite measurements and careful ocean temperature measurements at all depths, around the world.) So I suggest you try to read last years informaion from NASA and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The reason I say last year is because the current administration is forbidding them from talking about climate change. They are being censored. (You can easily verify that statement as well) There is a very vocal minority who claim otherwise but they are 3% of all scientists (although they will claim otherwise) as opposed to 97% who agree and are very alarmed at the rise in global temperature.
By the way as one example of evidence of global warming consider that the worlds largest International seed bank in the Arctic circle was recently flooded and essentially destroyed due to melting ice. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts
Hope this helps..

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  rlkorb
June 20, 2017 8:56 am

rlkorb
You forgot to mention the skeptic’s “well-funded oil money” in your otherwise well-memorized repetition of false accusations and hyperbolic propaganda pieces.

Trevor Ridgway
Reply to  rlkorb
April 15, 2018 12:12 pm

NO ! rlkorb of June 20 , 2017. NO ! No SEEDS WERE LOST !
The HEAVY RAINS which came at the end of Winter ( WHEN IT IS WARMING UP AGAIN )
and some of the permafrost melted and water entered the outer-tunnel-entrance
BUT IT DID NOT ENTER THE SEED BANK PROPER..
THE seed bank WAS NOT “recently flooded and essentially destroyed” as YOU CLAIM !
It was DUE TO RAIN WATER and NOT MELTING ICE.
PERMAFROST is mostly SOIL with some ice…..it is SET like concrete by the freezing
weather in Svalbad……..but with enough WARM RAIN WATER it will melt !
If you read this Michael PLEASE be aware of “doom-sayers” and those
promoting the idea of “Catastrophic Global Warming ”
aka “disastrous Climate Change” and not only be aware BUT beware !
Regards , Trevor Ridgway.

June 21, 2017 4:52 am

That is just plain crazy. You went to all that trouble to replicate an obviously flawed attempt to illustrate a principle. It doesn’t mean the principle doesn’t hold. The simple inarguable fact is that carbon compounds such as CO2 and methane don’t let infrared pass – they absorb it and hold that energy. That fact was demonstrated with more sophisticated equipment than that of Gore and Nye way back about 1850. You could have mentioned that – I’m sure you know it for a fact.
All your trouble was pretty pointless – but you probably had fun doing it.
Cheers.

Resourceguy
June 26, 2017 2:31 pm

It’s disgusting that Bill Nye is still raking in money for speaking fees at universities after being part of a faked experiment for educational purposes. That should trigger ethics investigations at these universities.

September 1, 2017 2:47 pm

So the “skeptic” still believes in CO2 “LWIR re-radiative effects?” Really?
If CO2 were to “trap” long-wavelength, it then would BLOCK long-wavelength coming in from the sun, canceling the “heating effect.”
Why is this so hard for people to understand? Do they not realize that the sun is a full-spectrum emitter?
http://markwidmer.com/2017/07/the-climate-change-blog

Reply to  Mark Widmer
September 15, 2018 10:01 pm

Mark:

You’ve neglected the fact that the spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation shifts toward the infrared when it is re-radiated from Earth’s surface.

fishfear
November 2, 2017 1:56 am

You did a great job. It really seems that few people think for themselves anymore. Thank you!