The Deliberately False Greenhouse Gas CO2 Experiment

Written by Geraint Hughes

This is a type of experiment which is quite often conducted by many whom teach greenhouse gas theory. The idea is that you demonstrate to observers that the presence of Carbon Dioxide in a bottle makes it warmer than another equally sized bottle containing just ordinary air from the atmosphere when you shine a light onto the bottles, showing greenhouse gas theory to be real.

Unfortunately this experiment is wrong and flawed in so many ways, that frankly it’s just unbelievable. It is nothing but a public act of gross scientific incompetence.

You may be familiar with this experiment, if you log onto you-tube and type in “greenhouse effect bottle experiment” you will see many examples of this type of bottle experiment.

Did you watch any of the videos? Did you find them convincing? Every word of all them are complete rubbish. The people who do these experiments need to go “Back to School.” They don’t know what they are talking about and if they do, then they are deliberately misleading everyone with these types of experiments.

They are all wrong and they are all wrong for the same reasons. I have seen this experiment done in different ways, some use old bottles, some use mini-greenhouses,

some even use large scale greenhouses and add lots of thermometers and insert ice statues and pools of water to spruce things up a little. They are all wrong.

Firstly, we must be aware that there are many other factors in determining what temperature a gas will be without looking at its infra-red absorptivity. Without knowing what these other factors you are left in the dark about many scientific facts.

Those other factors which affect this experiment are as follows:-

  1. Light bulbs emit short-wave IR as well as long-wave radiation and Carbon Dioxide absorbs directly this IR.

  2. The bottles aren’t sealed correctly.

  3. The density of Air and the density of Carbon Dioxide differ.

  4. The amount of water vapour in the bottles could be different.

  5. The specific heat capacity of Air and the specific heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide are different.

  6. The positioning of the light bulbs.

  7. The positioning of the temperature probes.

These factors can not be ignored, they have a very real effect upon the outcomes of the temperature of the gases involved and these factors are being deliberately manipulated to give results in favour of the emissive gas over the un-emissive air unfairly.

So let’s go through each mistake one by one and see what the problems are and what effect they have on the results.

1. Light bulbs emit both Shortwave and Long wave Infra-red.

A typical tungsten filament light bulb has a surface temperature of the filament of 2800K. What this means is that light bulbs are actually emitting not only light radiation which we can all see, but they are also emitting heat in the form of both Shortwave and Longwave infra-red radiation.

This heat is “DIRECTLY ABSORBED” by the IR gases and not by air, which is transparent to IR. The CO2 gas is absorbing radiation being emitted by the bulb, which bears little to no resemblance to the spectrum of wave lengths being emitted by the surface of the Earth as you can see in figure 3.2, with earth being closer to the 300K line and the light bulbs being the 2000K and 1000K lines.

The main principle of greenhouse gas theory is that the incoming radiation is absorbed by the “surface” of the Earth, which gets warmed and then in turn emits longwave infra-red radiation out into space. The presence of greenhouse gases inhibits this emission out into space and causes radiation energy exchange with the surface, which raises its internal energy levels which then in turn causes the temperature of the surface to rise.

The experiments “do not” show this, it shows that the radiation being emitted by the light bulb is being absorbed by the CO2 gas in the containers directly. In other words, BEFORE it reaches the surface. And plastic polyethylene bottles are mostly transparent to IR.

So what this means is that what we are proving is that CO 2 absorbs energy emitted from a light bulb better than air. So what????????? Earth isn’t heated by light bulbs, it’s heated by the Sun, which is millions of miles away, and I hear no one arguing that IR from Sun is present in such high quantities at the Earth orbit that CO2 in the air causes direct heating of the atmosphere. Such arguments would fail, because the sun emits far more shortwave UV and Light, than it does IR wavelengths applicable to CO 2.

No one is disputing that CO2 absorbs IR, it does. The point is, if you have an emissive gas, and you give it energy by whatever means, it will emit away that energy, whereas a non-emissive gas doesn’t, it will hold onto that energy.

Every climate book I have ever read, states quite clearly that CO2 lets the sunlight through and this energy warms the surface of the earth and CO2 supposed warming effect, is supposed to be based on inhibiting the release of that energy back out into space.

This bottle experiment and all like it, do no such thing. They warm gas in the bottle directly. It is therefore a completely irrelevant experiment as it doesn’t replicate the non-existent greenhouse effect.

Any scientist that doesn’t know this is completely incompetent and their teaching is worthless. So, you need to ask the question. “Why aren’t they telling you this?”

Did you hear the scientists explain direct absorption to you? Why not?

2. Bottles aren’t sealed

Why is this a problem? Well, it’s because when a gas is heated, it starts up convection currents. This is because the molecules in the gas have more energy, and when the molecules in the gas have more energy they move more vigorously. As they become more vigorous in their movements, that part of the gas becomes less dense than the gas above it. This causes the warmer gas to rise and the cooler gas to fall because the warmer gas can quite literally push past the cooler one.

If the bottle isn’t sealed, the warm gas will rise out of the bottle and will be replaced by cool air from outside the bottle.

If both bottles aren’t sealed, this effect will be duplicated by both bottles. However, if one bottle is more open than the other they will experience different rates of leakage.

If you ever see this experiment and you don’t see any control measures to prevent leakage, then you know it is unsafe to say at all whether both bottles were experiencing the same levels of leakage. It is safe to say however that the rates of leakage from each bottle will vary.

Variance in leakage rate causes these experiments to be flawed and yield untrustworthy results.

3. The density of air and the density of Carbon Dioxide.

Air has a density of approximately 1.205 kg/m3 and Carbon Dioxide has a density of 1.842 kg/m3 at room temperature of 20 C°.

As I mentioned earlier, when a gas is heated it starts a convection current, this convection current occurs because the density of the warmed gas is less than the cooler gas above it, which then causes the warm gas to rise and the cool gas to fall.

Now, when you have a mixture of gases the heavier gas will fall to the bottom and the lighter gas will rise to the top, even if it is warmer. So in the bottle with the added Carbon Dioxide, the CO2 will naturally settle at the bottom and middle of the bottle and the air will naturally rise to the top.

In the bottle of just pure air, the warm gas will rise and the cool gas will fall, this will cause a good deal of mixing. As the gas mixes its energy will transfer from molecule to molecule. This causes a more even temperature to be found throughout the bottle and will result in lower temperature readings at the probe.

Now, in order for a convection current to get going in the bottle with the added Carbon Dioxide, it must be warmed to a sufficient degree to replace the air above it. It won’t do this until it is lighter than the air. “It is necessary therefore for the Carbon Dioxide gas to be much hotter than the air” above it, for its density to be below 1.205 kg/m3 it would have to rise up to a temperature of approximately 170 C°.

In the confines of a plastic bottle being heated by a simple light bulb this quite simply just isn’t going to happen, therefore a convection current isn’t going to be as strong in the Carbon Dioxide bottle, it will mostly sit at the bottom of the bottle, only small convection currents within the Carbon Dioxide gas itself could be expected, with little if any mixing between the Carbon Dioxide and the air occurring. With less movement occurring, there will be less heat transfer from molecule to molecule, so the molecules at the bottom of the bottle will experience more warming. This results in more of the warm Carbon Dioxide gas being at bottom of the bottle.

Also, if the bottles aren’t sealed correctly the pure air bottle will experience much more leakage than the Carbon Dioxide mixture bottle, because in the pure air bottle the warm air inside the bottle will be lighter than the cool air outside the bottle and so the warm air will escape from the bottle, cooling the bottle down. Whereas in the CO2 bottle, the warm Carbon Dioxide mixture will be heavier than the cool air outside the bottle and wont have a tendency to escape the bottle and so the bottle will experience less cooling, it will be warmer.

The higher density of CO2 skews this type of experiment in favour of the Carbon Dioxide mixture being warmer than the pure air bottle.

This can be confirmed by using other gases which have densities heavier than air such as Argon as a replacement for the Carbon Dioxide in the mixed bottle. Argon isn’t even considered to be a green house gas and yet a similar warming effect will be seen due to a lack of movement caused by the denser gas in the mixture.

People who perform these experiments should always mention the densities of their chosen gases.

In the table below I have indicated some of the densities of different gases.

(1) NTP is the normal temperature and pressure is defined as air at 20oC (293.15 K, 68oF) and 1 atm ( 101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr).

We can see from these examples above that Argon has a density similar to that of Carbon Dioxide and Chlorine has a density which is even greater than Carbon Dioxide, neither Argon or Chlorine are considered to be greenhouse gases, yet if this experiment was replicated in the same way that it was here you would find that the temperatures of these gases would be greater than found in just the air bottle as a result of their greater densities.

Did you hear the scientists performing this experiment mention density? No!

Did you hear them tell you that performing this experiment with non-greenhouses gases Chlorine and Argon would yield similar results? No!

Do you think the fact they are omitting this information from, you a bit misleading? You would be right to think so.

4. The amount of water in the bottles.

The bottles used, tend to be emptied water bottles and some of the water is bound therefore still to be present on the inside. Without thorough drying the bottles will be unusable. If there is no mention of drying procedures to ensure fairness the results can only be untrustworthy.

Water is supposed to be a powerful greenhouse gas in its own right and its presence will affect the experiment, contamination prevention measures need to be in place to ensure fairness.

5. The specific heat capacity of air and the specific heat capacity of Carbon Dioxide.

All scientists whom are involved in climatology are aware of something called the specific heat capacity. This is normally measured in kj / kg / C° and indicates how much energy is required to be input into a substance or gas with a mass of one kilogram to raise its temperature by one degree Celsius.

So, lets say for example air has a specific heat capacity of 1 kJ / kg / C° and another substance say water had a SHC of 4 kJ / kg / C° then it would take four times as much energy to raise the temperature of water by 1 degree than it would to cause the air to rise by just one degree. So let’s say that 4 kilowatts of heat was inputted into both substances, the air would rise by 4 degrees but the water would only rise by 1 degree, even though both substances were receiving and absorbing exactly the same amount of energy.

Carbon Dioxide Gas has a specific heat capacity of 0.844 kj / kg / C°. This means that for every 1 kilowatt of energy inputted into it, its temperature will rise by 1.18 C°, whereas air will rise by only 1 C°. This means that Carbon Dioxide can attain much higher temperatures than air for the same input of energy.

However this also means that it cools down faster, its temperature fluctuates more than air does. So for example, if both bottles were sealed and left to cool outside at night, the CO2 mixture bottle would cool down faster and experience lower temperatures than the pure air mixed bottle.

If you were not aware of this fact, you could be misled into believing that in fact it is the Carbon Dioxides ability to absorb infra-red radiation which caused its temperature to rise more than the pure air and not because of its different SHC.

Again, if you used other gases instead of Carbon Dioxide, different temperatures would be experienced depending upon their specific heat capacities. This is an important point to make, because the people whom perform this experiment whom do not mention this could be accused of deliberately misleading people and rightly so, they should know better.

The specific heat capacity should always be mentioned in these experiments.

Here you can see that if we swapped the CO2 for Argon or Chlorine, both of which are not considered to be greenhouses gases, much higher warming would be experienced. This is because, they have much lower SHC’s and so therefore increase in temperatures more rapidly. But there’s no need to mention this is there, because this would stop people paying Carbon Taxes and we can’t have that now can we.

Again, did you hear the scientists tell you this? Did they mention SHC at all? NO!

6. The positioning of the light bulbs.

The positioning of the light bulbs influences the outcome of the experiment.

If the bulbs aren’t exactly the same distances away from the bottles and shining on the bottles in exactly the same location then the temperatures will differ across the bottles, even if they both contained just air. This is because if the light is being received lower down on a bottle it will have a greater heating effect, as the bench will help heat up the bottle. Or if some of the light isn’t shining on the bottle but is instead shining away from the bottle then some heat won’t be received by the bottle and it will be cooler as a result. If one of the lamps is even 1cm closer this too will affect the result.

Every time I see these differences, for some reason, I can’t think why? They are always wrong to give maximal readings for CO2 and minimal readings for air.

Many times when you witness these experiments you will see that the lamps are positioned differently and are shining on the bottles differently. This causes error to the experiment and means all results are flawed.

Lamp control measures are vital, if they aren’t in place the experiment is worthless.

7. The positioning of the temperature probes.

The positioning of the temperature probes affects the outcome because if they are in different locations in the bottle, they will experience different readings as a result of the natural stratification process which occurs within heated containers.

For example as warm air tends to rise, if the probe was at the top of the bottle then it would pick up different readings than if the probe was at the bottom. Also, if the probe was spread across the bottle it would experience a higher temperature because more of the light would directly be shining on to the probe, causing it to be warmer.

Many times when you see these experiments, the probes will be in different sections of the bottle, or not in line, or spread diagonally across on one bottle but in another they will be to one side? They should always be the same on all bottles. This is deliberate, with the CO2 side positioned to maximise readings and the air sensor positioned to minimise readings.

To perform this experiment correctly the probes should be inserted in through the top of the container, exactly in the centre of the top, facing straight down into the bottle, with no angle on the probe at all, with all bottles exactly the same.

So to recap:-

  1. Light bulbs emit short wave and long wave Infra-red energy, which is directly absorbed by the CO 2 gas. (Not greenhouse theory)

  1. The bottles should be sealed correctly, in both cases.

  1. Carbon Dioxide is denser than air, as is Argon and Chlorine, yet no one does comparison experiments and shows they have higher temperatures too.

  1. The bottles may or may not contain water, this can skew the experiment.

  1. Carbon Dioxide has a specific heat capacity less than air so it will be warmer if the same amount of energy is inputted. But then so does Argon and Chlorine and these aren’t greenhouse gases and yet they yield higher temperatures in these type of experiments.

  1. The light bulbs (WHICH SHOULDN’T EVEN BE USED) should be positioned the same way for each bottle, but they are always seen skewed to favour the CO2 bottle.

  1. The temperature probes needs to be exactly in the centre of each bottle, they never are.

There is no point in pretending that this experiment is scientific proof of greenhouse gas theory because it is not.

Professors, pretend climate scientists (they actually religious zealots preaching), tax hike mad socialists and wannabe communists kings, con-artists goody two shoe weak wristed fakers all use this experiment to “TRICK!” people into believing that CO2 causes devastating climate change and that the only cure is cost inducing systems of governance, control and unnecessary high taxes, which of course are used to pay their bills and further spread their lies.

Now you know the truth, you know the tricks used in the “Magic Show.”

You are now in a position to demand, educational authorities remove the lies from the system and this is what you should do.

You are now in a position to defend yourselves from the liars in the political establishment who wish to trick you into raising taxes and introducing systems of governance which don’t need to be in place, so they can enslave populaces and control them for their own needs. And you should repel them and repeal all CO2 and climate changes, rules, protocols and laws.

In my next illumination no four, I will show the differences between two imaginary gas planets and how one gas planet is really warm, and the other is really cool. I will also show that Venus is not warmed by CO2 gas as alarmists like to pretend but point out what the true cause of Venus’s really high atmospheric temperatures is. At the end of that letter, you will see that to think CO2 causes planetary warming, is not plausible but is in fact, “COMPLETELY ABSURD!”

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton


    The Earth’s atmosphere is an open system.
    The experiment seems to be a closed system.
    A pressure cooker gets hot because it is a closed system.
    A pan of boiling water gets to about 100C and gets no hotter with added heat.
    It only boils faster.

  • Avatar



    Keep in mind that the greenhouse effect hypothesis says that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (0.028% to 0.056%) will cause X amount of warming. These “greenhouse in a bottle” experiments test carbon dioxide at 1,000,000 ppm! Just the fact that the specific heat of CO2 is lower than that of air would account for the temperature going up faster in the carbon dioxide, everything else being equal.

    John Tyndall’s apparatus, which started the whole greenhouse effect farrago off, tested carbon dioxide at ~70,000 ppm (7%). Even at that high concentration Tyndall wrote that “carbonic acid proved to be one of the most feeble absorbers.” His findings led him to assert that the Earth’s hypothetical “greenhouse effect” was exclusively due to water vapor and water vapor alone. It is therefore ironic that today’s promoters of carbon dioxide caused global warming quote John Tyndall’s work in support of their thesis, when John Tyndall’s apparatus demonstrated carbon dioxide “to be one of the most feeble absorbers.”

  • Avatar



    When the sun is shining CO2 absorbs photons in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and warms the air. These photons didn’t reach the ground; a cooling effect.

    When there is no sun and air temperature is warmer than -30C CO2 will be radiating over the 13 to 17 micron bands. Less than half this radiation reaches the ground and will only warm it if it is cooler than -30C. The remainder escapes to space. Very effect cooling of the atmosphere at night. Ever notice how cool it gets on a calm night with no clouds overhead? The Romans used this effect to make ice in the desert over 2,000 years ago.

  • Avatar

    Martin Hertzberg


    The experiment that needs to be done is to have the bottle contain a black surface near 0 K toward which the light is directed. That surface would represent free space toward which the gas radiates. Would the gas still heat up while it is emitting to a 0 K surface? That experiment would better represent the real conditions in the atmosphere.

Comments are closed