Greenhouse Gas? The Two Bottles Experiment Explained

https://principia-scientific.com/greenhouse-gas-the-two-bottles-experiment-explained/

 

My reply:

 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