However to me it looks more like they have the left hand lamp offset a bit so it doesn't heat as much.
That is aside from the fact that CO2 will have different conductive and convective properties which are nothing to do with GW's greenhouse effect.
Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results? 8-)
It's a simple experiment Dennis. Surely simple enough for a man of your calibre to repeat. That way you will be able to discover how much of a mismatch is required before the temperature increases are equal.
That is a fine collection of straws you are clutching at there, but none of them with even a single figure attached. Please enumerate the differences between normal atmosphere and normal atmosphere with an unknown (but presumably substantial) quantity of CO2 added.
Not half as desperate as deniers like you.
Here we go again with the 'deniers' ploy commonly used by tree huggers. "If you don't agree with us, you must be mad, therefore your arguments aren't valid".
Dennis & I don't always get on and we have had our disagreements, but he is not entirely stupid and has a valid opinion here.
What a pity TMH isn't in Dennis' group of "educated people". Perhaps if he was he would have noticed that I didn't dismiss Dennis' comments out of hand. I just poked fun at his unsupported exaggerations of what might be insignificant differences. Neither of us know for sure but it was Dennis who put forward the spoiler without any attempt to put figures to it.
FWIW I don't see "Just how desperate are these people that want to fake results? " as anything other than the use of s*it to smear the opposition with. The experiment might not be scientifically rigorous but that is the problem with trying to dumb down the science to make it understandable to the public at large. That TMH chose to pick up on my counter rather than the original smear says far more about his prejudices than it does about mine.
Oh go away and learn some basic physics.
The fact that you think the demonstration actually has *anything* to do with the greenhouse effect shows just how little you understand.
I thought the same thing. However the claimed effect is quite enormous, so it should be easy enough to devise a proper scientific experiment. The bottles should be flushed with air and CO2 added to the other bottle using the same lamp. I would want to see the results for a range of CO2 percentages, e.g.
0.04%, 0.08%, 1%, 5% 10%. I suspect the BBC may have had near 100% CO2.The BBC of course is on the alarmist side. They have recently published over 40 articles blaming all kinds of things on Global Warming. Anyone want to see the list?
The fact that Dennis thinks it doesn't shows that he knows even less about physics than I do and precious little about how to communicate using the English Language either. The experiment would be a fake only if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect didn't exist at all. Now both these presumptions exist at significant levels among deniers so the question arises does either Dennis or TMH actually subscribe to either lunacy?
You would be well advised to take your own advice.
At the basic level it demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (despite what Dennis claims) but then that is not exactly news. The greenhouse effect has been known about for at least 100 years.
Does it differ in any way from all the alarming stuff the Met Office publish?
The greenhouse effect is simply that energy from the sun is predominantly light, and that the loss of heat from earth is in the infrared region. Green house gases are ones which are transparent to light, to allow this energy to heat the earth's surface, but opaque to infrared, preventing the earth from losing heat to space. Instead our atmosphere absorbs this energy, gets warmer, and re-radiates this energy back to the earth's surface.
The experiment was trying to show the effect of CO2 absorbing some of that infrared heat energy and hence relevant to the demonstrating the greenhouse effect. Those lamps will be giving out more infrared than anything else.
As you rightly say, there are a few variables involved here, which may well skew the results, and the use of light sources isn't helpful.
They just can't accept that someone could possibly disagree so they use a term deliberately chosen to resonate with "holocaust deniers" to make us look bad.
MBQ
And they get it wrong, big style.
Dave
My point exactly. Thank you.
Yes please.
Show the list.
Adam
snip
Hmm, 'tree huggers' and 'deniers'in one sentence. Given the paragraph from MBQ below that now looks as though TMH was attempting to smear the global warmers by association with both the holocaust and the green meanies.
You get called deniers for an obvious reason and that reason has nothing at all with murdering several million Jews. The association is all in your minds - a guilty conscience perhaps.
snip
Who got what wrong?
Generally, unless there is chemical interaction, gases behave proportionately. So a column of 1 m of 100% CO2, has the same absorption as
10 m of 10% CO2. Obviously the other 90% may also absorb infrared, but again that should be predictable if you know the constituent gases.
What year did this greenhouse gas theory come into the English language.
Dave
Sorry, my bad snipping to blame here.
The met office, everytime they issue *any* forecast.
Dave
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required