Greenhouse Gas? The Two Bottles Experiment Explained
The two bottles experiment is often cited by those who claim that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is correct. The Greenhouse Gas Theory is essentially the idea that certain gases are capable of raising the atmospheric temperature up to a point that the Earth will be destroyed by it.
The gas that is most often cited is carbon dioxide (CO2). This accusation has made taxpayers, in many nations, poorer by pouring money into a means of generating energy that will not result in the release of CO2. So far, the attempt to replace coal, diesel and other conventional means of generating electrical energy has failed. Some reductions have been realized. But is the effort worth it?
The two bottles experiment is believed to show that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere that it will result in the temperature also increasing. This very simplistic explanation is usually cited. To me it appears to be an explanation that one would give to a child because they don’t think that it is worth their time to explain it to the child. But if they were to explain it, it would destroy the credibility of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
The purpose of this paper is to give an explanation of the results of this experiment as is. Therefore, I will not discuss whether or not an enclosed bottle in a warm room authentically represents the atmosphere. Also, I will not discuss if the pressures in the bottles are the same. I will simply take their experiment at face value and examine its output. So, I am going to stack the discussion in the favor of those who believe in the Greenhouse Gas Theory. I assume that the reader has basic algebraic understanding.
The two bottles experiment is simply two bottles. One of them has nearly 100% CO2 while the other has normal atmospheric concentrations. The atmosphere has about 0.04% concentration of CO2. So, the concentration difference in CO2 is nearly completely full swing. The bottles must be a type that is not glass because most types of glass does not allow radiant heat to pass through.
When these two bottles are placed in front of a radiant heat source the temperature increases in both. But the one with more CO2 will raise faster and will reach a higher temperature as compared to the other. The temperature difference between them is regarded as the deltaT. The deltaT is about 2 degrees Celsius (degC). This means that the concentration level of CO2 to cause the atmospheric temperature to rise 1 degC is 50%.
Let us explore the meaning of the 2 degC change. According to the Wisconsin Department of health oxygen deprivation does not begin until about 40,000 ppm is reached. This is 4% concentration. The Washington State University Energy Program says that humans exhale about 100 times the amount of CO2 than that which they inhale. We inhale about .04% and we exhale about 4%.
So, at an atmospheric concentration of 4% our blood concentration levels of CO2 will rise because proper gas exchange between our lungs and the atmosphere is not occurring, but this is not deadly. Michael Stratford says that the atmospheric concentration that is deadly is around 100,000 ppm which is 10%. So, by the time CO2 can cause the atmosphere to rise 1 degC in temperature humans probably would be extinct.
At the moment, we are nowhere near 10%. As stated, we are only above 400 ppm which is only about 0.04%. Right now, CO2 is only a trace gas. In order to raise CO2 to 100% would mean that all other gases will have to disappear from the atmosphere, including water vapor.
If the greatest amount that CO2 could possibly raise the atmospheric temperature is 2 degC over the current temperature, then what is the concern, other than biological? Perhaps a more pressing question is do Climatologist even use this or consider this experiment when coming up with doom and gloom predictions of the future if humans continue to release CO2 or if nature continues to release CO2. To find out we need find out what the deltaT is for CO2 increases that they are using.
Climate Scientist claim, according to Rebecca Lindsey (2014), that doubling the preindustrial CO2 level will result in a 1.5 to 4.5 degC for an increase in CO2 of 0.05%. I arrived at this percentage by taking the preindustrial level in parts per million (ppm) stated by Rebecca Lindsey (2014) which is 250 ppm. As stated, if this level doubles it will result in at least a 1.5 degC increase in temperature. Doubling the value means that the 250 ppm value is raised by another 250 ppm so these Climate Scientists are claiming that an increase of 250 ppm (.025%) increases the temperature by at least 1.5 degC.
The experiment says that a change of 100% is only 2 degC, what does it say for a change of only 0.05%. Multiply .05 times 2 divided by 100, the result is .001 degC. So, this means that using the experiment as a basis when the CO2 concentration is 0.05% the temperature increase due to CO2 is only 0.001 degC.
This is a huge deviation from their proposed theory. What is the deltaT then for a 100% change according to the idea that a 0.025% increase of CO2 results in a 1.5 degC rise in temperature? Multiply 100 times 1.5 divided by 0.025 which is 6000 degC.
The 100% bottle would have to be 6000 degC greater than the atmosphere bottle. So, it must be concluded that they do not use this experiment. Why then is it promoted by those who follow the idea of Greenhouse Gas Theory? Another question is then what experiment are they using in order to base their theory off of? This experiment demonstrates that any rise in temperature since preindustrial times has been the result of something other than CO2.
References
“The Earth in a Bottle – CO2 Games on my Kitchen Bench” April 16,2016
www.thefosterlab.org/blog/2016
How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? By Rebecca Lindsey (Jan 24, 2014)
https://www.climate.gov/news-f
Wisconsin Department of Health Services
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/
What Concentration of Carbon Dioxide Is Life Threatening? By Michael Stratford
https://education.seattlepi.co
Washington State University Energy Program (2013)
http://www.energy.wsu.edu/Port
Biography: Chris Marcil is a multicraftsman and independent researcher.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Wayne
| #
Unsubscribe please
Reply
Wayne
| #
Unsubscribe thank you
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Wayne, to unsubscribe you need to check the ‘unsubscribe’ button in the daily newsletter you signed up to.
Reply
MattH
| #
I see Dr Roy Spencer’s satellite lower atmospheric temperature data records a reduction of more than 0.25 degrees Celsius for the month of December, 2020.
It should be noted that we are in a mild La Nina event and the global Mean Surface Level Pressure maps have been fascinating to check each day with record cold and record barometric pressure reading of about 1090 Hector Pascals up Mongolia/Siberia way in the center of a very cold stable high pressure system.
All this, of course, is still global warming. Inverted global warming!!!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
We have entered a solar minimum with reduced solar flare activity. This does not affect the sun’s output of visible light and longer radiation but the shorter uv and x-rays radiation is reduced. While it is the longer radiation that heats the surface and water on Earth, it is the shorter radiation that heats the gasses in the atmosphere, hence the cooling.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
And hence the big ozone whole in the Southern Hemisphere spring in September.
There are a number of contributing factors with climate and some of December’s temperature record was also weather.
Cumulative effect and multiple hypothesis is essential.
When one looks at the energy budget you do not see anything budgeted for terrestrial and oceanic biomass photosynthesis.
The only time I have seen it acknowledged is a comment by TomOMason.
How come burning and looting and violence through out last year is called peaceful protest but American citizens concerned about the corruption of democratic process are accused of rioting? I saw on news today how the police turned their back on the protesters and walked away from the protesters to let them in.
Without fear or favour is a fundamental for political and judicial even handedness. Let us hope the upcoming challenges on the election get a fair hearing for forensic audit.
Cheers Herb. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
All the energy consumed by life constitutes stored solar energy which is released to be radiated as the material decomposes.
It will be interesting to see the response from police to orders from people who have done so much to undercut their authority and hinder them in doing their jobs when they want protection.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I finally understand why you state that one cannot measure the temperature of an gas with a thermometer when the atmosphere is being warmed by an external source of energy (radiation) such as the sun or the earth. Any solid or liquid sensor of temperature is going to be ‘warmed’ differently than the gas molecules. And unless all matter is at absolute zero temperature, there will always have to be some external source of radiation (energy).
But when you stated: “All the energy consumed by life constitutes stored solar energy which is released to be radiated as the material decomposes.”, you are also correct. But we should ignore that a portion of the energy being consumed by ‘life, is continually being radiated away from the life body while it is ‘alive’. And the source of the energy consumed by ‘animals’ is ultimately the sun via the photosyntheses of plants.which converts carbon dioxide to food and oxygen which is also an essential for ‘animal’ life.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
Photosynthesis is inputted with direct sunlight.
As El Nino causes spikes in global temperature I only acknowledged La Nina and weather with December’s recorded temperature decrease.
Cheers. Matt
Alan
| #
This misses the point about the so-called greenhouse effect. It is the increase in temperature of the earth’s surface that is relevant, not the temperature of the atmosphere, and the effect is based on heat from the surface being absorbed by the atmosphere and then returning to heat the surface again. All impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics.
Reply
Chris
| #
They claim that the Earth is heated, then it heats the atmosphere but then the increased atmospheric temp then increases the Earths temp. This experiment is often times cited to illustrate that the increases in CO2 is what facilitates the increase in temp. I agree that the laws of thermodynamics alone disproves it but this experiment confuses the greenhouse gas believers. So I am attempting to demonstrate that the results of the experiment doesn’t prove their position. That means then that they have no experiments to base their calculations on.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Chris,
You wrote: “The purpose of this paper is to give an explanation of the results of this experiment as is.” Then you described the conditions of the experiment: “The two bottles experiment is simply two bottles. One of them has nearly 100% CO2 while the other has normal atmospheric concentrations. The atmosphere has about 0.04% concentration of CO2. So, the concentration difference in CO2 is nearly completely full swing. The bottles must be a type that is not glass because most types of glass does not allow radiant heat to pass through.” Then you described the general results of the experiments which is your stated purpose to explain: “When these two bottles are placed in front of a radiant heat source the temperature increases in both. But the one with more CO2 will raise faster and will reach a higher temperature as compared to the other.”
However, I assume you furnished the first two figures (pictures) of the ‘actual’ experiment. And in both pictures I do not containers filled with two different gases (atmospheres). So, first you need to address the difference between the experiment you described with words and those which seem to describe the experiment with pictures.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MNC
| #
Two bottle experiment. The faster rise in temperature in the CO2 bottle is a function of specific heat. (CO2=0.844 and Air=1.01). That is with the same amount of heat directed at the bottles the temperature should rise 1.01/.844=1.2 times as fast. However, I declare that if the experiment is run long enough (several days?) , then the temperature in the two bottles will become equal because the source of heat is equal —- it simply takes longer to heat air than CO2 with an equal source of heat.
MNC
Reply
Chris
| #
You’re probably right MNC but the article was written to illustrate what their conclusion is. Their conclusion is that co2 increase causes the atmospheric temps to increase. But the experiment shows that the greatest difference that will occur is 2 degC.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
What a waste this article is. Why stay stuck on stupid with lame obsolete experiments from the horse and buggy era?
Why no comment that CO2’s specific heat is lower than air’s, hence it takes less Joules of energy to raise its temperature by 1 degree C, thus it will heat faster if large amounts of heat are applied. This experiment is moose hockey because it doesn’t limit the IR input to the specific wavelength that CO2 absorbs from Earth’s surface, namely 15 microns. If it did, actually nothing would heat because its Planck radiation temperature is -80C, lower than dry ice. The picture shows the use of an infrared lamp, which radiates in the range .78 microns to 1000 microns and often has an effective radiating temperature of 1000C or 1800C, yet no specifics are given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater
IR heaters can heat not only the gases but the bottles, both by direct radiation and warmed air. The gases will then warm by conduction and convection. Good luck finding a bottle material that doesn’t absorb the radiation but passes all of it to the gas. Either way, the heater should be kept a long distance away from the bottles to eliminate cross-convection.
But why bother? The CO2-driven global warming theory is dead. The Planck Radiation Law of 1900 killed it. I have shown how radiative physics really works here on P-S, complete with the killer bullet of exposing CO2’s weak puny -80C photons as unable to melt an ice cube, yet nobody seems to have caught on or fought to spread it. Meanwhile the IPCC juggernaut is closing its grip. I can only hope P-S gets newer smarter readers.
Just Say No to the IPCC and -80C.
This is my best deepest disproof of the CO2 global warming hoax, patiently explaining each step and answering all known objections. If millions of people read it, the IPCC would be dead. Don’t be among the last when you can be among the first. Even if you can’t handle all the physics, you can still take away the soundbyte that atmospheric CO2’s -80C radiation can’t melt an ice cube and can’t cause global warming at any concentration.
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi TL.
You wrote, ” I can only hope P-S gets newer smarter readers.”
No. Evolving strategy is the necessary progression.
Regards. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL,
You cannot bring the WORLD Atmospheric System into the laboratory. The USA government has funded several very valid studies of the atmosphere by putting instrumentation into natural settings to quantitative’y measure observed facts of the natural atmosphere and solid and liquid earth.
Have tried to make a tiny bit of this measured information to readers of PSI, but I cannot remember you ever making any comment about this information which does has consequences just as any laboratory experiments’ data do. Except, as I believe that you understand we do not even know the name of anyone who has actually conducted the experiment which is the focus of Chris’s article.
Previous to your comment I had written a comment to Herb in which I agreed with him that we cannot measure the temperature of the gases in either bottom by simply placing a thermometer, or any other temperature measure devices in the bottles. For what we are messaured is the temperature of thermometers which must also be absorbing a potion of external source of IR radiations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Chris
| #
TL Winslow, I know that the CO2 global warming is a hoax. That should be apparent from the article. The trouble is that most people who believe in global warming cite this experiment as proof of global warming. Every time that I ask one what experiment exists that proves that the greenhouse gas idea is real, they cite this experiment. They are actually teaching this in schools. They use this experiment to confuse children and put the global warming propaganda firmly into their heads.
I had tried to talk to some of them before about the actual science behind it but they are unable to get beyond the simple childish explanation shown by this experiment that CO2 will cause the bottle to heat faster. Apparently I was talking way over their head. I came to the conclusion that the only way to teach them would first require showing them that this experiment doesn’t prove global warming. Without this they have no experimental basis. And I am confused by how they can assert that a .025% increase in CO2 could possibly result in a 1.5 degC increase in temp. So I discuss the fact that this experiment shows that the greatest possible sudden increase in the 100% bottle only goes up 2 degC.
I believe that we are in the trouble that we are concerning the global warming scam because of the ignorance of these people and that the only way to get through to them is to show them how wrong their “supporting” evidence is.
Reply
TL Winslow
| #
[[I know that the CO2 global warming is a hoax. That should be apparent from the article. The trouble is that most people who believe in global warming cite this experiment as proof of global warming. Every time that I ask one what experiment exists that proves that the greenhouse gas idea is real, they cite this experiment. They are actually teaching this in schools. They use this experiment to confuse children and put the global warming propaganda firmly into their heads.]]
To kill a snake most effectively you lop off its head. The IPCC CO2 global warming hoax is supported by a bloomin’ onion of lies and a beehive of manufactured temperature data, but to try to kill it by refuting each of them in turn would be futile when we have so little audience, and give them an open road to their goal of ending all freedoms.
The 2C observation is cute, but no cigar. That experiment is totally illegitimate and unfit to be shown even to children, because there are many more complicating factors in the way of doing such an experiment right.
ROTFL, right off the top, that stupid lab experiment was trying to prove that CO2 absorbs heat permanently, when everybody knows that that would make it more buoyant and start rising to space, carrying its heat with it after pulling cooler above it down in its place, leaving the surface cooler than before. Actually, 100% CO2 is twice as heavy as air, and has to be heated to over 100C to become buoyant in air, if it didn’t immediately mix down to the 0.04% level anyway, but in any case, the experiment missed the boat because the dude needed to place another tube full of mud or separate water and dirt compartments next to the pure CO2 tube and see if it heated up from its radiation alone. There would be the problem of shielding it from the infrared lamp and from the warmth of the atmosphere, perhaps by placing it inside a styrofoam container with a slit. But CO2’s 15 micron radiation (slightly lower temperature than dry ice) wouldn’t even melt an ice cube in the tube.
Of course, if a lamp is used that goes to 1000C or higher, the experiment is worthless because Earth’s surface temperature range is limited to -50C to +50C except for extreme localized cases, and CO2 has shorter radiation absorption/emission wavelengths at 2.7 and 4.3 microns that would activate at such high temperatures, helping protect the thermosphere (and everything below it) from solar storms, but finding to such high energy photons to absorb on Earth’s surface except over volcanoes etc.
Do you want to stop the IPCC or just get systematically marginalized? Just knowing that CO2’s weak puny 15 microns CAN’T MELT AN ICE CUBE makes such experiments unnecessary. To go with that, people have to understand that CO2’s Planck radiation temperature of -80C is the highest temperature it can raise an absorbing molecule to with its radiation. If not then there’d be patents for the dry ice powered microwave oven and flame thrower, and the Tokamak people could reach 1 million C for fusion power by putting it in a giant dry ice cave.
To kill this snake we all must work together to proclaim the -80C problem with CO2, and put them on the defensive. Right now they can just ignore it because we’re letting them walk away with the brass ring. If they drop their ostrich act and publish academic papers pretending to refute their own killer bullet, exposing their ludicruous ignorance of thermal physics, that would bring them down faster, so that’s our path to victory before they do real damage.
https://www.quora.com/In-the-face-of-growing-global-instability-and-changing-climate-how-do-we-know-how-to-prepare-for-what-is-coming-ahead/answer/TL-Winslow
Only I am trying to proclaim the killer bullet that makes every experiment a waste of time, namely, that CO2’s radiation wavelength of 15 microns can’t melt an ice cube because of Planck’s Radiation Law. It’s sad that there are so many people who are ignorant of it, even physicists, but nobody can refute it, and if it gets around widely enough, the IPCC will be defeated.
Reply
Chris
| #
I’m right there with you but I’m not kidding that people cite this. If you do not address it directly they have a dull look on their face and refer back to this experiment. I’ve found teaching instructions for conducting this experiment. This is taught in school. There are discussion guidelines for teachers on this. Like I had said my discussion started by giving them everything and showing that it doesn’t work.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TL,
You just wrote: “Of course, if a lamp is used that goes to 1000C or higher, the experiment is worthless because Earth’s surface temperature range is limited to -50C to +50C except for extreme localized cases, ”
First, from where are you getting this SURFACE temperature data? Second, if there are extreme localized cases outside of the range you cite, one must explain how it is that the extremely high and low temperatures, outside the cited range can occur.
So, without more validated evidence, why should anyone accept what is only your reasoning (opinion)?
Scientific ideas should be only based upon observations (measurements) or testable by observations.
I call attention to the observed diurnal temperature oscillation which I believe many PSI readers are familiar (if they live outside the tropical zone.). And I believe these readers are likely familiar with the seasonal temperature oscillation. So what more evidence does one need that atmospheric carbon dioxide with its somewhat constant concentration has little to no effect upon diurnal temperatures and seasonal temperatures when the maximum, or minimum, temperature of day can vary so much from one day to the next during any season.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
S. K. Dodsland
| #
The UN/IPCC’s co2 sensitivity value is computational not experimental which explains the skepticism.
A quote from the following article: “The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the climate sensitivity.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/12/the-list-grows-now-100-scientific-papers-assert-co2-has-a-minuscule-effect-on-the-climate/
Reply