AGW debunked for £5.00 - The movie.

[Derek]

Hi All,

Way back in 2008, Samuel Boyd said to me at the Heartland conference,
"We need a simple experiment to disprove AGW".
I replied, "It must be possible."
As some here are probably aware, I have been on the lookout ever since.
I think I have found THE experiment, AND
it disproves more than just AGW.

http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
AGW Debunked for £5.00
Spinonthat.com
Text -
This simple experiment can be reproduce by anyone
using three plastic bottles, three cheap tropical fish tank thermometers,
a halogen heater to provide infrared and a large bottle of carbonated water.

Many who consider themselves scientists will try to discredit this
experiment in various ways so I would like to highlight the importance of
this simple test by preempting any such criticism.

Firstly, in order to avoid any issues with regards increased water vapor
I have used a control bottle of ordinary air without any water.
This way we can be sure that if water vapor becomes a forcing mechanism
in the other two bottles we can compare that to the dry bottle.
This control rules out water vapor as a forcing because
the dry bottle and the bottle half filled with tap water react equally to the infrared heat.

Next I would point out that I did consider that the back side of the thermometers would be directly heated
by the lamp but ruled this out as a concern for the following reasons.

Firstly because the bottles are made of clear plastic they are perfect for this experiment.
While being transparent to the infrared light, the plastic itself is a poor conductor of heat.
Therefore it allows rapid heating of the gas inside while reducing heat conduction to the thermometers.

Next, because the gas inside is so rapidly warmed and rises over the 30º C max of the thermometers within a few seconds,
it is fair to conclude that any direct heating of the back side of the thermometers would be insignificant.
This is attested to by observing that the bottle containing CO2 is as slow to absorb as it is quick to re-emit heat.
While the tap water/air and ordinary air bottles react equally.

Finally because the gas inside these bottles is heated so rapidly the infrared heat source
can be turned off after just a few seconds which allows us to observe the pure heat emitting properties
of normal atmospheric air compared with pure CO2.

Positioning the tap water/air bottle in the center gives another control because as can be seen,
the ordinary air on the right reacts to infrared equally to the center bottle with tap water/air.
This control helps to exclude water vapor as a forcing while
at the same time rendering it unnecessary to reposition the bottles.

It is clear from these results that CO2 does not retain more heat than ordinary air.
It is therefore conclusive that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and
that the term greenhouse gas in context with the Earths atmosphere is fallacious.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment is that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere
will not produce a warming effect, therefore AGW is a scientific fraud.

First things first, OK the films are a bit dry, and do need a better presentation
if they are to hit home with the importance they should.

I also suggest that the experiment as described has missed some very significant points that it shows / proves.
Yes, the experiment ignores lots of other very small trace greenhouse gases, ie methane, but to all intents and purposes they can be "ignored" for this experiment "as is".
The (later in this description) proposed new control bottle sort of deals with this "problem".

1) "As is" the experiment shows "pure CO2" heats up slower and cools faster than atmospheric air, whether it be over water or not.
I wonder if this is better explained as CO2 has a lower specific heat content than the other atmospheric constituents,
so just like aluminium conducts heat at different rates to say steel then so does CO2 compared to the rest of the atmospheres constituents.

CO2 can loose heat faster than other atmospheric constituents because it has another mechanism by which to loose heat other than conduction, it can also react radiatively.
I would suggest this experiment shows CO2 reacts radiatively much more than other atmospheric constituents to both heating and cooling.
In other words the CO2 content has a significant effect upon the atmospheres specific heat capacity, or rather it's rate of change of temperature.
Undeniably, CO2 dissipates heat quicker than the other atmospheric constituents.
That explains why the "pure CO2" bottle is slower to warm, and quicker to cool, CO2 is dissipating the heat at a greater rate.

2) The "dry" air bottle is not dry air, it will still contain water vapour.
The two "air" bottles will both still contain CO2.
Whether the "pure CO2" bottle's atmosphere contains more water vapour or or not I'm not sure, but I would suspect more.
The control for this experiment should be a bottle containing an atmosphere of pure nitrogen (80%) and oxygen (20%), and no water vapour.
This control would warm up faster than any of the other bottles,
and cool down slower than any of the other bottles.
Why, because CO2 main effect occurs at very, very low concentrations (less than 100ppm),
AND water vapour is radiatively active over a wide spectrum band, with a high volume in the atmospheres in the experiment as run so far.
This "new" control would only emphasis the effect the experiment shows / proves.

What would the experiment show with the N2/O2 dry control bottle. ?
If the control bottle heated quicker and cooled slower, remember this bit has not been done yet,
so this is a prediction.....
1) Water vapour and CO2 disperse heat at a greater rate than the other atmospheric constituents radiatively,
they are anti greenhouse gases.
The atmosphere would be warmer for longer without them.

2) The overall heat of something must take into account it's loss of heat rate, as well as the heat input rate.
This is shown / proved by the different rates of heating and cooling of the various bottles.
Put another way - radiation budgets must be relative not cumulative.

For £5.00 pounds this experiment is good, for some extra pennies and another control bottle as described,
it could be a brilliant, a climate science paradigm changing experiment.

A four bottle version of this experiment could show / prove
all (additional) IR budgets are wrong,
the greenhouse effect "theory" is wrong,
and,
AGW is wrong.

Opinions please.
1) Does the experiment show as described above. ?
2) Is the experiment repeatable, verifiable. ?

If the above is correct then do we not have the basis for the film / documentary "reply" to AIT.