2011-07-17 14:35:35Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment
John Cook


Email question:

Nafis Nahle has published another article in his "peer-reviewed" journal, this time detailing how he's verified Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment.


His claim is that this invalidates how scientists say the GHGs work in our atmosphere.

Something's fishy, but I can't quite put my finger on it.  I'm thinking something to do with the materials used not being considered, open vs. closed systems and possibly a "cooling" greehouse effect?

Anyhow, I'm hoping to get some input from climate scientists, or people with more advanced training in physics than myself.

2011-07-18 00:12:34
Glenn Tamblyn


The nearly final paragraph says it all


"The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles."

He is repeating an experiment into how heating in real greenhouses works. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 'Greenhouse Effect' as described in Climate Science which operates on totally different principles. The phrase 'Greenhouse Effect' as used to describe a phenomena in the atmosphere is using physical greenhouses and how the behave as a metaphor. It is used for general descriptive purposes only. The way Greenhouse and the 'Greenhose Effect' work are very different. All this paper has done is repeat an experiment on how greenhouses work. To draw any conclusions from this about the Greenhouse Effect is semantics, not physics.

2011-07-18 00:26:20
Rob Painting

"Something's fishy, but I can't quite put my finger on it............I'm hoping to get some input from climate scientists, or people with more advanced training in physics than myself"

Sounds like a skeptic trolling. Can't quite put their finger on it? Yeah right, and Rupert Murdoch's not a Sith!.....and bears don't go doo-doos in the woods.

2011-07-23 17:01:32Another email about this
John Cook


From Stephen Schneider:

I know you guys are probably busy, but I'm hoping someone has had a chance to look at Nasif Nahle's latest article where he claims to have verified Woods' 1909 experiment.

I really think someone should do a writeup on it.


2011-07-23 18:33:31
Rob Painting

Funny reading my previous comment. I read today that James Murdoch has a life-sized replica of Darth Vader in, or outside his office. One of the employees there said that he could hear the 'imperial death march' whenever Murdoch was around.

Don't know JC, is it really worth the effort responding to?

2011-07-27 12:06:43
Sarah Green

Glenn is correct, Nahle has shown that greenhouses get warm. This has no relation to the climate greenhouse effect.

This site is full of remarkable claptrap, aggravated by clumsy translations. The motherlode seems to be at http://www.biocab.org/Environmentalism.html.

It includes:

"AGW proponents hide from you the fact that we did not create a single molecule of CO2 because matter is not created or destroyed, but transformed; so that, all the CO2 and the residual “greenhouse gases” that we are releasing to the atmosphere existed in other Geological Eras."

"I have noticed that the trend in the fluctuations of the solar activity and the trend in the variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth are almost parallel one to another."

"The implementation of the Kyoto’s Protocol will not solve the phenomenon of global warming; in the first place, because it does not depend absolutely of the human activities, but from natural factors. In the second place, because the concentration of Heat-Forcing gases in the atmosphere are not thermodynamically capable of store the density of heat registered in the last century. The variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth depends on cosmic factors, like the increase in the intensity of Solar Radiation and of Intergalactic Cosmic Rays."

"Climate Changes has been happening every 100 thousand to 200 thousand years."

Plus a bit on stratospheric ozone that includes the bizarre recommendation that you should minimize car use to save the ozone layer.

Indeed, all the usual canards appear on the site: heat island effect, Medieval warming, cosmic rays, solar flares, Mars (and the whole solar system) is warming, various contorted thermodynamics. 

Most could be linked to existing sks arguments. But is it worth drawing attention to by refuting it? Are there many references to this site on denialist sites?