Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 126 Votes - 2.87 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 - Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
07-17-2011, 03:23 AM
Post: #1
2 - Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Hello All,
In this thread and section of the forum I will try to collect as many experiments as I am aware of, that are,
a) Repeatable in our own homes.
b) As cheap and as easy to do as possible.
These experiments will be to test the principles of AGW, or as it is also referred to man made global warming.

This thread will be for several experiments by William Pratt, and myself, in which,
we test the hypothesis that increased CO2 levels will warm earth's atmosphere.
This is THE basic building block of AGW in all it's forms and models,
IT IS A CORNERSTONE OF AGW, so,
it is important that such an assumption is thoroughly tested.

Some time ago now I produced a piece to explain how the IPCC, and present computer climate modelling models CO2 effect upon earth's climate.
The one assumption of the
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “theory”
(or, so called Man made climate change)
modeling you should understand.
The 10 degrees celcius / 280ppm CO2,
and 1 tenth per doubling thereafter assumption.

Attached to this post.

In short, 1) CO2 produces a little warming, that is then 2) multiplied by a positive water vapour feedback mechanism.
I have found no proof of either 1) or 2) to date, they are commonly assumed, and asserted (ie, "Everyone knows that", etc, etc), but there appears to be no actual evidence.
Amazing as that may sound, it appears to be the case at present.
If anyone knows of such proof, I would very much like to hear of it.

William Pratt's first experiment.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
AGW Debunked for £5.00
Three excellent videos are on the thread that explain and illustrate what William Pratt did, and
show how you can also cheaply replicate it at home.

Which he followed up some time later with this very simple and understandable pdf.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/AGW_..._again.pdf
IR ABSORPTION TEST
CO2
V’S
ORDINARY AIR

pdf titled AGW_Debunked_Again Williamm Pratt, attached to this post.

I have devised my own version of his experiments, to test the same AGW principle, that can be done outside in direct sunlight.
I will post my version asap.


Attached File(s)
.pdf  AGW_Debunked_again Williamm Pratt.pdf (Size: 79.67 KB / Downloads: 329)
.pdf  working copy - The one assumption of the AGW .pdf (Size: 1.82 MB / Downloads: 205)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 02:47 PM
Post: #2
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Good idea! I've got a couple of cylinders of pure CO2 welding gas as I have a small classic car restoration business.

R Wood's famous experiment should be repeated using KBr sheets and confirmed!! (if it has not already been!) I would like to run that one myself.

A further thought- if CO2 is such a great "heat trapping gas" then why are energy saving glazing units filled with Argon and other noble gasses and not CO2???
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-18-2011, 02:08 AM
Post: #3
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
I like the suggestion of a home version of the famous Woods experiment Climate Realist, so I have started a new thread, for it.
If you would kindly expand upon your suggestion there.
I will (when I find it) put Nasif Nahle's recent repeat of it, but I am not sure it has been released yet.

No more discussion of that separate experiment in this thread please.

Also, I consider the rest of your post, and scpg02's post to be off topic and have accordingly reported the posts.

I have taken the above action because this threads subject is so important, and so central,
which you both by your off topic posts seem to have missed completely.

If correct, and CO2 cools, there is no climate modeling at present,
there is also no basis for any and all of the IPCC "climate science",
which is ALL based upon the assumption, that everyone "knows" that
CO2 supposedly warms earth's atmosphere.

This series of CO2 bottle experiments,
that are cheap and easy enough for anyone to repeat at home,
are PROOF OF PRINCIPLE that,
CO2 increases the atmosphere's ability to cool itself.


That is the subject of this thread - thank you.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-18-2011, 05:32 AM
Post: #4
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Derek, I am not convinced by the simple bottle test as a proof that CO2 cools the atmosphere.

Please have a look at Sunsettommy's Question and Answers thread Post: #1 "What is Carbon Dioxide?" and scroll down to the Atmospheric Absorption Bands graph (the colours help Smile ) and note the number of bands water vapour has for absorbing IR from the sun compared to the number of bands available to carbon dioxide.

I see in the photograph of the test bottles there is a window in the background. I assume this is the south facing light source.
As far as I am aware glass is opaque to IR. I don't know the cuttoff for glass in the IR spectrum but I assume it is unlikely to be above the 1 micron level where water vapour is still absorbing but CO2 cannot.

I have never owned a fish tank so am unaware of the accuracy of those "digital thermometers" but I must assume they are designed to work under water so would normally be in contact with a significant thermal mass. If those bottles are the one litre variety then the mass of air or CO2 inside will be rather less than one gram. Dodgy

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-18-2011, 06:29 AM
Post: #5
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Richard111, and all,
There have been many criticisms of William Pratt's experiments.
I have tried to take as many as possible onboard with my version that will be posted asap.

What I can say is that every version of the experiment to date,
inside, outside, sun as radiant source, or artificial radiant source,
has produced the same results.
The CO2 bottle warms slower.
The CO2 bottle cools quicker.
And,
The CO2 bottle always reaches a lower max. temp.

Re accuracy of strip thermometers, they seem accurate to me in air, but
I will be checking them against more accurate and sophisticated sinometers.
I have already, admittedly briefly, and the strip thermometers in air indicated the same temp. as the sinometers.

NB - Re double glazing, I seem to remember we looked at that a bit back and dry air was the best "filler".
Obviously these experiments show why CO2 is not used in double glazing....CO2 aids cooling.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-18-2011, 09:26 AM
Post: #6
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Actually, inert gasses such Argon and heavier inert gasses make the best fillers for double glazing because they do not conduct or convect heat as well as air. Yes, you are right about CO2 though, pure CO2 in double glazing would cool slightly more than air.

The reason is that the kinetic heat of the gas in the double glazing can be converted into IR by molecular collision with the CO2 molecules, and these can release their energy by emission of 15micron IR (among other wavenumbers). And radiation of IR is a much faster way to move energy out of a system than physical means ( such as convection, conduction, latent heat of evaporation etc).
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-18-2011, 10:42 AM
Post: #7
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
(07-18-2011 09:26 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  The reason is that the kinetic heat of the gas in the double glazing can be converted into IR by molecular collision with the CO2 molecules,

There is no reason other gases can not, and in fact, do do this also.
ie, convert the energy of molecular collision into emitted IR - otherwise solids would not emit IR.

This really is the hidden point of the experiment.
If you imagine an atmosphere made up of only N2 (80%) and O2 (20%),
then this mixture would emit, because of molecular collisions, IR dependent upon it's temperature.
The gas mixtures temperature obviously also dictates the molecules speed / kinetic energy, hence IR peak frequency, and amount emitted by collisions.

OK, now if we add another gas to this mixture, that can also radiate IR by another means other than just from collisions,
then the mixture can and will emit more IR.
So, the mixture with a radiatively able gas can and does redistribute heat quicker.
This means a mixture of gases including (or an increased % of) a radiatively able gas would heat slower, cool faster, and reach a lower maximum temperature.

Which is exactly what the CO2 bottles show in the experiments.
CO2 aids, and increases the atmosphere's ability to cool itself.

(07-18-2011 09:26 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  And radiation of IR is a much faster way to move energy out of a system than physical means ( such as convection, conduction, latent heat of evaporation etc).
We have disagreed about this before. Photons maybe fast, but the amount is small.
Think of it like this, does the water cycle heat pipe move more energy than radiation within earth's climate system?
ie, My The (naked) cooling cannonball "thought experiment". Post 6

That is a difficult one to break in one's mind given the present "radiation obsession" I know....

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-19-2011, 11:55 AM
Post: #8
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
A little history re the CO2 bottle experiment, regarding where and when it came from, and by whom.
(I am also aware of some other delicious irony details and large names involved, that will follow soon....)

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one...he-crisis/
The one flaw that wipes out the crisis

Post 153
Politicians cost lives:
December 11th, 2009 at 4:16 am

S. Short (94)

Leaving aside the insults and half baked attempts to silence this poster through humiliation, let me repeat my point. You need to show GCM’s DO actually include convection. Since the total amount of convection in the atmosphere is chaotic, unpredictably variable and thus unquantifiable, it follows that it is impossible to correctly model. Therefore it is unlikely that you can do anything but make unsubstantiated claims (categorical statements) to the contrary. Also in view of the fact that the so called “climate scientists” refuse to allow anyone, particularly independent scientists, to even look at, let alone test their data, I should think it even less likely that you can show that they have used convection in their models (even at an in-depth technical level). Incidentally I think you’ll find that OLR stands for Out-going Long-wave Radiation, not “Outward Leaving Radiation”. Just a small in-depth technical point that I would expect a middle aged scientist and experienced “thermodynamicist” (no such word) to be aware of. Still thats just the opinion of one middle aged expert thermo bovine excrement detector.

S. Schapel (95)

The experiment with the bottles does not prove the existence of a “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere. All it proves is that if you trap a gas so that it is unable to convect when you apply heat, that gas will absorb more heat and increase in temperature. This is not news. The effect can be observed simply by blowing into you hands on a cold day. Besides water vapour, according to “greenhouse gas” theory, is supposed to be a more powerful “greenhouse gas” than CO2. So it might be helpful if pseudo-scientist like Gray could at least show some degree of consistency in their sophistry, as this may help with credibility issues. The more likely culprit in the coca-cola bottle for the heat bias will be the sugar. So the correct scientific test would be to compare two bottles of water one of which would be carbonated. In fact I have just done this experiment with three clear plastic bottles:

Bottle one was half filled with tap water and sealed.

Bottle two was half filled with carbonated water, vigorously shaken when sealed in order to ensure maximum carbon dioxide in the cavity.

Bottle three was an empty bottle containing only ambient room air and sealed.

I have video taped the experiment and will soon upload the film to my web site. The results are no surprise to me but will be shocking to many AGW believers. The experiment was carried out twice in succession and the bottle containing almost pure CO2 cooled faster than the other two bottles consistently on both occasions. Proving that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and also proving that ordinary air holds on to heat longer than pure CO2.

All gasses absorb and emit IR. The temperature at which a substance becomes a liquid or gas, is what really determines how sensitive it is to absorbing heat. Oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere and has a melting point of 54.36 K. Nitrogen is 79% of the atmosphere and has a melting point of 63.15 K. CO2 is 0.03811% of the atmosphere and has a melting point of 194.65 K. So which of these three gasses is having least effect on atmospheric temperature?

The experiment is consistent with the fact that CO2 is the least sensitive to heat as attested to by its relative melting/freezing point of 194.65 K.

The science of AGW and Greenhouse effect is a 150 year old fraud.

Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, Know it!

http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-23-2011, 12:52 PM
Post: #9
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Derek - WHY this experiment is so important.


I have two reasons why this experiment and thread are to my mind so important, that I think need further explanation.

1) Greenhouse Effect theory is quite differently explained by the IPCC and computer climate modelling ,
as compared to what is presently being taught as the Greenhouse Effect.

The IPCC and (James Hansen derived) computer climate modelling is all based upon
the first 280 parts per million Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration causes a 10 degrees Celsius rise in Global Mean Temperature (GMT).
AND,
that for every further doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration that a further tenth of the preceding increase GMT is caused - ASSUMPTION.
ie, 280ppm CO2 = 10C rise in GMT, 560ppm CO2 = 11C rise in GMT, 1,020PPM CO2 = 11.1C rise in GMT, etc, etc, etc.
The effect of CO2 upon GMT is therefore claimed to be a logarithmic warming effect.

The "physics" of this is all contained within MODTRAN, as used in climate models.
Access to MODTRAN (which is nothing more than a software program) is controlled by the American Navy, whom
you have to pay a considerable fee to gain access to, and sign a non-disclosure agreement before hand...

Greenhouse effect "theory" (GH) as presently taught in leading American Universities,
as well BY Gavin Schmidt (of NASA), and famous mainstream skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen,
has recently been compiled and presented in a simplified (concentrated) form by Alan Siddons.
I, with Alan's approval, have presented his summation of what is presently taught in the below figure.
[Image: Slide23.jpg]

It is immediately apparent that the two, although similar, are actually quite different.
The IPCC / climate modelling explanation is plainly "geared" towards "justifying" bureaucratic, and political controls of human CO2 emissions.

The "as presently taught" above described version of GH will be soon put to rest by Joe Postma's second paper.
BUT, that will still "leave" the IPCC / climate modeling version.
It will not in reality, but in many "vested interest" peoples minds this version will not be dealt a death blow by Joe Postma's second paper.

The IPCC / climate modeling is based upon, CO2 warms a little,
and then the positive water vapour feedback mechanism (also assumed within MODTRAN....)
multiplies the initial small CO2 GMT increase. Quite scarily apparently......
This (assumed / ascerted) positive water vapour feedback can multiply the initial CO2 increase anywhere between 1.5 times to upto 5 or more times, apparently,
depending upon the "scenario" modelled.....

So, all in all, as far as the IPCC / climate modeling approach to GH and therefore Anthropogenic Global Waring (AGW) is concerned,
the assumption that CO2 warms earth's atmosphere is an absolutely critical first step.
Without the CO2 warms earth's atmosphere assumption, there is no IPCC / climate modeling, "climate science", nor AGW.
The CO2 bottle experiment is about you being able to test this assumption for yourself, relatively easily and cheaply.

2) Thermal IR within earth's atmosphere comes from two principle sources.
(principle - OK, OK, I am "covering" myself, I don't know of any other possible IR sources)
IR is emitted when,
a) molecules collide, AND,
b) by some molecules (in gaseous form mostly, but a little in liquids as well) that can stretch their chemical links,
from a lower energy state (absorbs energy) to a higher state and back down again (emits IR) to the molecules lower state.

This simple, and accepted fact, that there are two possible sources of IR, is often overlooked, yet,
it makes a huge difference to "things".
Imagine if you will, an atmosphere made up of 80% Nitrogen (N2), and 20% Oxygen (O2).
Such an atmosphere, as N2 and O2 can not at atmospheric temperatures change their links, can only emit IR by molecular collisions.
(If anyone knows how this could be done, cheaply within this experiment, please, please let me know,
either on this thread or by PM)
This governs or rather limits how fast, or rather slowly such an atmosphere could warm or cool for a given heat input,
with a given maximum rate of heat loss from the system.

Now, if one added a gas that is radiatively able to absorb and emit energy in the form of IR, or kinetic energy, or heat as IR, to the N2 and O2 only mixture
then how would this effect the gaseous mixtures ability to warm, or cool, and
would it effect the maximum temperature for a given input the mixture could, or would achieve?

The purpose of the CO2 bottle experiment is to answer the above question,
where an atmosphere with very little CO2 in it, is compared to an atmosphere with a lot more CO2 in it.
What will happen, because it will happen repeatedly, and cheaply infront of your very own eyes?

If one assumes that adding more of a radiatively able gas to a mixture of gases will increase the gases effects, then, it would follow that,
for a given heat / energy input and cooling rate,
the increased CO2 bottle will heat up quicker, because heat / energy is redistributed within the atmosphere quicker.
However, as redistribution is increased this would mean that in the increased CO2 bottle a lower maximum temperature would be achieved, and maintained.
Furthermore because of the increased redistribution when the source is removed then cooling in the increased CO2 bottle will be quicker,
again due to the increased ability of redistribution.

Is this what the CO2 bottle experiment shows - do it for yourself and see...

Point 2) shows, and explains why, an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 would appear to cool earth's atmosphere,
therefore,
CO2 increases earth's atmosphere's ability to cool itself.
Which is rather a problem for the IPCC / Climate modelling "climate science".
CO2 does not warm earth's atmosphere, even a little,
CO2 aids the atmosphere's ability to cool itself, even at very low concentrations.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2011, 11:33 AM
Post: #10
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
Hi All,
Well, I suppose I had also better link to this from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ne...418356.stm
Putting the science of global warming to the test

As William Pratt has commented there are some obvious errors with the experiment the BBC has performed.

" At 3.19 you will see that CO2 is 1.6ºC cooler.
Then the video cuts and apparently 10 minutes later CO2 is now almost 5ºC hotter (the reason for two separate heat sources obviously).

But by far the most blatant fraud in this Newsnight "program" is the fact that (@ 3 minutes 37 seconds in)
after apparently 10 minutes of warming the CO2 which began at 34.0ºC and ends up at 38.7ºC,
but
the air bottle which started out at 35.6ºC after being heated for the same amount of time with an "identical" heat source,
is now exactly 1ºC cooler!
Truly amazing!

Enjoy the show.

Cheers

Will
"

I and William are working on a better version of William's original experiment,
I can tell you it works, it is cheap, and it is repeatable by you.
Please bear with me, I will show you all, ALL YOU NEED TO REPEAT IT FOR YOURSELF, and as soon as possible,
but I WILL CONFIRM, the experiment shows CO2 cools the atmosphere.

If the importance of this fact does not really register yet, please read the attachment in the first post.
Specifically the 280ppm CO2 causes 10C warming ASSUMPTION.
CO2 is assumed to warm the atmosphere, without that, there is no IPCC nor computer climate modeling, full stop.
THAT is why this experiment is so important.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2011, 11:52 AM
Post: #11
RE: Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
A very interesting recent video / development...

http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Gree...dered.html

“A popular science experiment that purports to prove that adding extra carbon dioxide to the air will cause an enhanced “greenhouse effect” goes something like this.

“Start with two bottles. One of the bottles is left with regular air in it and the other bottle is filled with carbon dioxide from a seltzer bottle, carbon dioxide cartridge, dry ice or whatever.

Experiment #1

“Since I used data recorders to monitor the temperature inside the bottles in my experiment, I put these recorders into the bottles before adding the carbon dioxide to one of them. I left a third data recorder outside of the bottles away from the experiment but in the same room so that I could measure the temperature change of each gas above room temperature when they were heated with infrared radiation. I then closed the lids on both bottles tight enough to keep the gases from escaping during the experiment. Once the bottles were prepared heat lamps of equal strength were positioned at equal distance from each bottle and the lamps were then turned on. I recorded what happened and here are my results.

“On this graph the red line is the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is the temperature of the regular air. The carbon dioxide reached about 22 degrees Celsius above room temperature, while the regular air only reached about 16 degrees Celsius above room temperature. As you can also see in this graph the carbon dioxide got warmer more quickly than the regular air and stayed about 6 degrees Celsius warmer throughout the experiment.

“This experiment has been performed hundreds of times at science fairs around the country and it is proclaimed to be empirical evidence of the ‘greenhouse effect’, which postulates that the greater warming of the carbon dioxide in this experiment is caused by the carbon dioxide absorbing more infrared radiation than did the regular air, thus affirming the belief that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will cause it to be warmer than it would otherwise be.”

“The point is then often punctuated by showing any one of a number of various posters that graphically illustrate the ‘greenhouse effect’ hypothesis, like this graphic produced by NASA.

“But wait! I am not yet through with my experiment. Is that really what is going on here? Did the carbon dioxide actually become warmer because it absorbed more infrared radiation than regular air?

“Let’s take a closer look at this experiment.

“You see, this experiment contains at least two variables. That is, there are at least two differences between carbon dioxide and air that affect how they react individually to thermal energy. One of the variables in this experiment is the well known fact that carbon dioxide absorbs different wavelengths of infrared radiation than does air in general and it is around this variable that the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is built and it is this variable that this experiment purports to test, but a second lesser known variable present in this experiment is the fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air so when it absorbs thermal energy by any means, either through conduction or radiation it expands with greater force than does air. This is because its heavier molecules carry more kinetic energy than air molecules. Think of the difference between catching a foam-rubber ball vs. a baseball with your bear hands. You can catch a foam-rubber ball with you bear hands-no problem, but at the same speed the baseball will sting.

“In this experiment though neither the carbon dioxide nor the air were allowed to expand when they were warmed as they would have in the outside atmosphere. Now, preventing a gas from expanding when heated has the same effect as actually compressing a gas. It causes the pressure inside its confinement container to increase and this drives up its temperature, beyond what it would otherwise be. As a result, pressure built up in both bottles and they both experienced greater warming than they would have without the containment because of what is called ‘the heat of compression,’ but the carbon dioxide more so than the air because it exerts more expansion pressure when warmed than does air. So, even if both gases absorbed the same amount of thermal energy from the heat lamps the carbon dioxide would still have gotten warmer within the closed bottle because of its greater expansion pressure.

“So, because there are two variables in this experiment that operate under different laws of physics we still don’t know how much of the heating was caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’ and how much was caused by the ‘heat of compression.’

The Heat of Compression

“Before we proceed let’s take a closer look at the ‘heat of compression.’

“The ‘heat of compression’ is one of the most well known and thoroughly studied thermodynamic properties of a gas. It has been known since the 18th century that even without adding thermal energy, the temperature of a gas will increase just by compressing it, because doing so raises its pressure. Confining a gas within a finite space while heating it (as was done in this experiment) has the same effect. As the pressure within the confinement container increased the temperature of both gases increased as well above what it would have been had the gases been allowed to expand normally as they do in the outside atmosphere.

“The opposite is also true. If you decrease the pressure exerted on a gas it will cool. For example as one ascends in altitude the air pressure decreases and this causes the air to become so cold, in fact, that it can snow in the summer time or even form ice on the wings of an airplane.”

“So, how do we eliminate the second variable from this experiment so that we can test just for the ‘greenhouse effect’ alone? Well, its quite simple. We vent the lids of both bottles to allow both gases to expand as they would normally in the real world, and remember, since the carbon dioxide is heavier than air just the force of gravity still keeps it in its bottle throughout this experiment even though there is a small hole in the lid.

Experiment #2

“So, after the bottles cooled to room temperature I repeated the experiment with the lids vented to allow the gases to expand as they would in the real atmosphere and these are the results that I got.”

“As you can see, that which was being called the “greenhouse effect” disappeared when the gases were allowed to expand freely the way they do in the outside atmosphere. On this second graph the red line is still the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is still the temperature of the air, but as you can see they now track together quite nicely. Also notice that without the ‘heat of compression’ even the air only warms about 7 degrees Celsius, which is less than half of the 16 degrees Celsius of warming that it experienced under the ‘heat of compression.’

“So, here are the two graphs side by side and again, the only difference between these two experiments is that the second experiment allowed the gases to expand freely as they would have in the outside atmosphere. The graph on the left, from the first experiment, demonstrates that carbon dioxide when confined to a finite space has a markedly more forceful expansion pressure when heated than does air. On the other hand, if you remove that confinement, you get the graph on the right, which shows virtually no temperature differential between carbon dioxide and air when heated by infrared radiation.

“What can we conclude from this experiment? When carbon dioxide is allowed to expand when heated it does not become any warmer than does regular air, therefore this experiment contains no evidence that carbon dioxide causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect.” Rather it confirms what is already know, that carbon dioxide has, what is called, a greater “coefficient of thermal expansion” than does regular air. If you are paying attention though, this experiment has an even greater lesson to teach us.

The Greater Lesson

“So, how then might this experiment serve as a metaphor for what’s happening in the larger world of climate science today? Is it possible that a similar misidentification of natural forces exists on a larger scale within the real world atmosphere? Let’s take a look.

“This is what the ‘greenhouse effect’ hypothesis is all about it offers an explanation of why these two temperatures are different. The temperature on the left, the minus 18 degrees Celsius, is the temperature at which scientists have calculated that the atmosphere should be to maintain balance with incoming sunlight, but they have noticed that the measured global mean temperature at the surface of the earth is around plus 15 degrees Celsius. This is a difference of 33 degrees Celsius. The question then is ‘Where did this extra 33 degrees Celsius of warming come from?’

“A number of scientists assert that this extra 33 degrees Celsius of warming at the earth’s surface is caused by the ‘greenhouse effect.’ I would like to offer for your consideration an alternative explanation.

“As it turns out there actually is not any extra heat in the atmosphere. The temperature of the atmosphere is exactly what it should be, as calculated, to maintain perfect balance with incoming sunlight—it is roughly minus 18 degrees Celsius at its core, at its center mass, which is about 5 kilometers up. The real question then is not, ‘Why is the surface of the earth 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere.’ The real question is, ‘Why is the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface of the earth 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it is at the atmosphere’s core, at its center mass, which is about 5 kilometers up in the sky?’

Well, it should be obvious that this warming is caused by the ‘heat of compression,’ since the force of gravity compresses the air below the center mass of the atmosphere against the surface of the earth. The relationship between a gas’s volume, pressure and temperature,which our tabletop experiment demonstrated quite nicely, is not a new discovery. It has been know for centuries as the Ideal Gas Law.

“So, when the gravity compresses the atmosphere against the surface of the earth the operation of the Ideal Gas Law demands that the surface temperature increase as a result. Do to the specific mass of our atmosphere this compression raises the mean global temperature from a minus 18 degrees Celsius at the atmosphere’s core to a plus 15 degrees Celsius at the earth’s surface. This is a total of about 33 degrees Celsius.

“This can even be demonstrated mathematically, because it has been observed through millions of weather balloon soundings over the past 100 years that the average rate at which the air temperature changes as you change altitude is about 6.5 degrees Celsius per kilometer, either up or down. As you go up the air gets cooler as you go down the air gets warmer just because the air pressure changes with altitude.

“High altitude skydivers experience the Ideal Gas Law every time they jump. If, for instance, they start their jump at the atmosphere’s center mass, about 5 kilometers up, for every km that they fall the air becomes about 6.5 degrees Celsius warmer so by the time that they reach the ground they will have experienced roughly 33C of warming.

“So, the mystery is solved. There is no extra heat in the atmosphere. It is exactly the temperature that it needs to be to maintain balance with incoming sunlight. It is just that the air beneath the center mass of the atmosphere is being compressed by gravity raising the surface temperature about 33 degrees Celsius above what it would be if there were no gravity.

“So, even as in our tabletop experiment where the operation of the Ideal Gas Law was misidentified as being an enhanced “greenhouse effect. So to, in the real world atmosphere the ‘heat of compression’ created by the force of gravity is being misidentified as the ‘greenhouse effect.’ In the tabletop experiment when the ‘heat of compression’ was removed the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ disappeared. Were we able to suspend the force of gravity than that, which is currently being called the global ‘greenhouse effect’, would disappear as well and the atmosphere at the surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius cooler.

“So, even though it has been asserted ‘Without the natural greenhouse effect the surface of the planet would be about 33 degrees Celsius colder on average,’ what we should be saying is that ‘without the force of gravity compressing the lower atmosphere, the surface of the planet would be about 33 degrees Celsius colder on average than it is now.’”

[END SCRIPT]

*******************************************************
Comment on the effect of latent heat transfer on the “atmospheric lapse rate” from the author of the above video: “I realize the that the average atmospheric lapse rate of 6.5 degrees Celsius per kilometer would be much higher without the latent heat transfer created by the evaporation of water into vapor at low altitudes and its subsequent condensation at high altitudes, but one can only put so much information into a 15 minute video. Following is an excerpt from the paper The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect by Joseph E. Postma, Msc, which can be found at:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Mode...sphere.pdf

“This excerpt explains why the observed ‘atmospheric lapse rate’ is inconsistent with the greenhouse gas effect hypothesis, since if the greenhouse gas effect hypothesis were a reality the atmospheric lapse rate would be in excess of 10 degrees Celsius per kilometer and not the 6.5 degrees Celsius per kilometer that has been observed in millions of radiosonde weather balloon measurements over many decades.”

“This basic equation of fundamental physics describes the distribution of energy and temperature of a compressible gas in a gravitational field. It is sometimes called the ‘adiabatic lapse rate’ because it matches, for dry-air, the same value as derived in meteorology for an adiabatic rising or falling parcel of air in the atmosphere. However, equation is actually much more fundamental and would be true independent of any bulk-motions of gas in the air column. It describes what the distribution of temperature has to be, at least qualitatively, a-priori. We note that the sign of the equation indicates a decreasing temperature with altitude, as we would expect based on the physically logical grounds discussed previously. With g = 9.8m/s2 and Cp = 1.0 J/g/K, the theoretical temperature distribution is approximately -10K/km. This value is obviously independent of any effect of GHG’s as no consideration of those were made in the derivation. Now, it is expected that an increase in GHG’s will increase the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere, while decreasing that at the top, and because the atmosphere is essentially fixed in depth, this would require the ‘lapse rate’ distribution of temperature to be larger, as there would be a larger temperature differential over the same atmospheric height. However, this is obviously the effect the postulated back-radiation GHE must have in the first place with the existing, presumed already quite significant, effect from already-existing GHG’s in the atmosphere, no matter what the thickness the atmosphere is. That is, the lapse rate should already be faster than -10K/km because there is (ostensibly) already a GHE in operation in the atmosphere. Yet this is clearly not the case, and the fastest lapse rate derived in meteorology is still that value as can be derived from equation, independent of any pre-existing GHE. Additionally, if we examine the effect of the strongest GHG on the lapse rate, which is water vapor, we find that it acts to reduce the rate of temperature change, not increase it, which is again in direct opposition to the requirements of the GH postulate. The observed average lapse-rate of the atmosphere, called its environmental lapse rate, is actually far smaller in magnitude at -6.5K/km. Once again, there does not seem to be any room for the postulate of a back-radiation heating GHE because observations from the real world seem to disallow it.” The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, by Joseph E. Postma, Msc, p. 16, July 22, 2011

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-15-2012, 06:05 AM
Post: #12
RE: 2 - Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis
“A popular science experiment that purports to prove that adding extra carbon dioxide to the air will cause an enhanced “greenhouse effect” goes something like this.

“Start with two bottles. One of the bottles is left with regular air in it and the other bottle is filled with carbon dioxide from a seltzer bottle, carbon dioxide cartridge, dry ice or whatever.


Put another way, CO2 is heavier than air, so when the same volumes of (rigidly contained) air and air with enriched CO2 content are warmed,
the enriched CO2 container will heat up more, because more mass is being warmed.
More warmed mass will exert more pressure which will raise temperature more within the (rigid) container.
- It is absolutely nothing to do with (supposed for GH "theory") radiative abilities, particularly of CO2, at all.
Any heavier than air gas, rigidly contained, would show the same result, for the same reason.

"Unfortunately" this means I have to admit I was wrong with my belief in what Will's water bottle experiment shows.
But, if I had not followed the line of experiment / investigation I would not be where I am now.
So, all is well, in that it ends well, with a better understanding of the facts of the matter.

Thank you to Carl Brehmer who has a wonderful webpage.
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Gree...lcome.html

Recently he added this as well. Which I had already posted in the forum, but in case you missed it
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Gree...dback.html

Yup, water vapour is a negative feedback.....

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  1 - Home experiment to illustrate the cooling power of latent heat. Derek 31 28,554 09-24-2012 08:20 AM
Last Post: Derek
  3 - Home experiments to test the Woods experiment Derek 5 6,467 07-20-2011 05:26 AM
Last Post: Richard111



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)