There are several such videos on YouTube, I like this one best because they give the fullest explanation of their methods etc.
In summary, the bottle with 100% CO2 ended up 2C warmer than the bottle with normal air under a very bright light (giving off at least twice as much radiation as the sun does, from the point of view of the bottles).
Given the, I hope, undisputed logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 concentrations, I don't see how the increase from "pre-industrial levels" to current levels, from 0.03% TO 0.04%, could possibly have had any measurable effect.
But hey...
Put On Your Big Boy Pants, Maybe?
51 minutes ago
4 comments:
The issue is about the enormous amount of energy that the Earth gets from the sun, that all has to be radiated away if the Earth's temperature is to remain stable. It doesn't take a huge change in atmospheric reflectivity or absorbtion to lead to huge energy (heat) gains.
MiM, I'm playing by their rules. They said they can "prove" their theory with this experiment. Clearly they cant.
They should try repeating the experiment with the main greenhouse gas, H2O.
B, their gaff, their rules. They say that it's all about CO2. And the very experiment that's supposed to prove it proves exactly the opposite.
As to H2O being a GHG, it cools in the day time and insulates in the night time, it's a 50/50 either way thing.
Post a Comment