• Home
  • Frontpage
  • Experimental proof that CO2 does not cause global warming

Experimental proof that CO2 does not cause global warming

Written by Dr Judy Ryan for Geraint Hughes

See the short video below the line which proves that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. Therefore it cannot cause global warming. This experiment can be conducted it in any School laboratory. For more information add a comment or request below.

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (21)

  • Avatar

    Tinkabell

    |

    I don’t think this demonstrates that CO2 is or is not a back radiator. It simply shows that the effects of convection and conduction are strong enough to allow the filament to transfer heat away from itself. The only way to test “back radiance” of CO2 with this apparatus would be to do the experiment with other inert gases as well as CO2, having compensated for the relative effects of convection and conduction, to eliminate those differences.

    It would also be helpful to know more about Professor Hughes’ credentials.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      So what you are in effect saying is that back radiance is being nullified by conduction and convection and it is a force which is so weak as to be easily overcome by them. In other words, you can ignore it. This experiment clearly shows CO2 did not increase the temperature of the filament, it only acted to warm it. We constantly told everyday that the Earth would be freezing cold without a greenhouse gas atmosphere because if it was bare rock in a vacuum there would be no back radiant effects keeping it hot. Actually what happens to the bare rock in a vacuum when we add CO2 is that it cools the surface of the rock it, it does not get warmer. The other gases comparison is an upcoming experiment, I will release the results in due time.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Charles Camenzuli

    |

    Hi Judy,
    I have my doubts about what can be determined from that experiment with the globes.
    it is obvious that the filament did not glow as bright in an atmosphere of CO2 but that is expected under the conditions of the experiment, regardless of whether COs has the “back radiation” properties or not.
    I do not particularly subscribe to the back radiation hypothesis and feel that it is a third order effect if at all.
    from my understanding of the operation of a filament globe the globe heats up from the electrical resistance and reaches an equilibrium temperature within the vacuum of a certain temperature that glows brightly. The filament looses heat mainly by radiation due to the partial vacuum. A minor amount of heat is lost by convection as there is a little amount of inert gas in the globe to prolong the filament life, as it would vapourise more rapidly in a pure vacuum.
    If the Globe was filled with with any significant amount of inert gas the amount of convection would increase considerably and this will cool the filament. So the cooling of the filament when CO2 is introduced into the globe is not unexpected, the issue is which effect is dominant, the cooling effect of an inert gas or the heating effect of the back radiation (if it exists).
    All the experiment showed was that the cooling effect was more than the hypothesized Back radiation effect.
    I would suggest that the experiment should be conducted also with an atmosphere of Nitrogen introduced and measure if there is any determinable difference in the temperature of the filament between Nitrogen and CO2.
    The revised experiment would more closely indicate if the Back Radiation is measurable

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      You should be aware that the Earth is 3 Dimensional and that the cooling effects of increased rates of heat loss due to the presence of an emissive gas can not ever over come any back radiance from the gas. This is one method of demonstrating this, I have many more. What this means is that you end up with cooler surface temperatures with IR gases and warmer surface temperatures with NON-IR gases. Good evening.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter C

    |

    “See the short video below the line which proves that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. ”

    Well No. I agree with the comments above.

    A further problem is that so called “greenhouse gases” are supposedly transparent at visible wave lengths of EMR. So the experiment has to be performed with an infrared emitter, not a light bulb.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter C

    |

    Thanks Judy,
    I am sure that you can see, better than I can, what the problems are with Professor Geraint Hughes’ experiments.

    I have done quite a few “Green House Gas” experiments myself.
    One of them got published on the Galileo Movement website;

    http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/2012-10-31_AnExperimentToDemonstrateThePlausibilityOfTheGreenHouseGasEffect.pdf

    The result was negative, as are all the other proper experiments relating to the “Greenhouse Effect”.

    Anthony Watts claimed to have demonstrated the “Greenhouse effect”,
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/
    I made a couple of responses to that experiment. My second response was apparently so penetrating that Anthony Watts first snipped it, and now he has removed the reference altogether,

    So what? It is very difficult to perform primary greenhouse back radiation here on Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. I think it could be done at the Space Station, but I don’t think that will happen any time soon.

    So I am still hoping that someone will come up with a good “greenhouse” experiment.
    The best so far is this IMHO

    A link is here: https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2.-Communication-Experimental-verification-of-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf

    I think that experiment demonstrates a physical green house effect. However that does not mean that it works that way. My opinion is still that greenhouse gases, including CO2 are “cooling gases” But that is still to be explained.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Judy Ryan

      |

      Thanks Peter C,
      Actually, I have no background in physics or chemistry so am far less qualified than you and the other commenters. However, as an independently thinking intelligent individual, I also think that the evidence shows that CO2 is a coolant. I haven’t thought about the other GHGs yet as they are not the ones demonised by the IPCC. I am impressed by Geraint’s experiment and would like to see more experiments testing his hypothesis.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Judy Ryan

      |

      I have followed the link and read the paper, which is very impressive. I agree with you that the logic and evidence points to CO2 and the other GH gases as cooling gases. I cannot understand all the content, but by asking questions I hope to educate myself and others re the basic science of atmospheric gases, something that is no longer taught in our schools.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Tinkabell

    |

    Well I’d be keen to hear what Peter and Charles think, but my reading of the article link, doesn’t reveal any new experiment, simply the same one with a headbanging soundtrack and rather juvenile captions.

    Have I missed something?

    If not, I stand by my original comments. The experiment is effectively not fit for its intended purpose and simply does nothing to prove or disprove “back radiance”. Any thoughts or comments Peter and Charles?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter C

      |

      Hello Tinkabell,

      I did make a longish response but it is in moderation. Most likely it will stay there.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Judy Ryan

        |

        Hi Peter C and Tinkerbell, I have published your longish response. I think it is an excellent paper.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Clearly tinkabell cant read. If you could read you would have read ” I am going to swap the tungsten filaments for 1mm thick, instead of normal hairline filaments, because all these different tests will burn out loads of bulbs. I haven’t done that before so it may take me a while to get it all to work. Hopefully I will have all these done within 3 months or so.” Tinkabell, a baby handle for a baby brain.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Graham Foster

    |

    Our experiments show that increased CO2 will lead to atmospheric warming but that this effect gets less as CO2 concentration increases so that a maximum concentration causing warming effects might be predicted. However, the main Greenhouse gas is, of course, water vapour. Additionally, the effects of methane are about 16 x greater than carbon dioxide, and that has no limit to its effect. We spend too much time on CO2 and need to spend more time on methane and water vapour.
    CO2 absorption in caustic soda solution is relatively easy to develop, but methane abosrption is much more difficult.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Judy Ryan

      |

      Maybe we can find or create cartoons illustrating the lunacy of banning kettles or anything that changes liquid water to vapour; then analogise it to the lunacy of demonising tiny little CO2. People appreciate learning via humour.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Geraint Hughes

    |

    Well I am glad we all agreed. CO2 did not induce warming, only a cooling resulted.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    judy Ryan

    |

    In the absence of any other experiment and only the head banging music one I tend to agree with you Tinkerbell. Geraint had indicated that he was going to conduct a series of experiments and I have reminded him. So let’s wait and see..

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Lance Pidgeon

    |

    I have done nearly the same experiment in a scientific laboratory with physicists, chemical ,optical, electronics and mechanical engineers all watching. We did it with the intention of building a calibration source for an optical pyrometer. This video does show something that devastates the CO2 religion but it is not the conclusion given. As well as also not being able to get a good vacuum like him, we found the radiating/absorbing surface area of the filament too small. The filaments are thin. The radiation from them was too narrow for our desired source spot size. This means any “back radiation” created by the CO2 has too small a target too return to. The back radiation goes in all directions thus either leaves the bottle or is absorbed by the glass. So rather than prove there is no back radiation he has shown that there probably is and it cools the whole show by leaving the filament with ease but returning at a much smaller ratio.

    However he does unwittingly show a death blow to the CO2 panic. After demonstrating how well the CO2 absorbs the heat, at 5:32 in the video he says “hot air rises”. No the bottle was filled with CO2 at this stage so that should be warm CO2 rises.

    This hot source that equates more appropriately to what the sun will do to CO2 than what the surface will do shows that even in a confined space CO2 un-traps heat via convection.

    He shows that CO2 is likely to have a negating effect on temperature change. That is a negative climate sensitivity. Back radiation that this experiment shows likely to have cooled the filament would warm the cooler large surface area of the earth but enhanced convection from extra CO2 will cool it when it gets hot. The “Well mixed gas” is the solution or cure to natural climate change. We need more not CO2 not less.
    Siliggy

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Judy Ryan

    |

    Thank you Lance Pidgeon. Your work and your other videos contribute to exposing the CO2 scam. Maybe you can send your video with the transcript shown above. This and the paper submitted by Peter C are what I call real experimental science i.e. the building up of knowledge and evidence by openly discussing the methodological problems in your own research.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Lance Pidgeon

      |

      Thanks Judy.
      The experiment we did was about 25 years ago and there is no video. My comments above were mostly about Geraint Hughes video. He shows a massive convection effect.
      This effect though obviously real does not get talked about much. WHY???
      I expect this convection to increase exponentially with temperature, so it would lower maximums while back radiation increases minimums. The combined effect of CO2 would then be to reduce the daily (diurnal) temperature range.

      Reply

Leave a comment