Perhaps it was symptomatic of the "science" you were doing not being very good, rather than a corrupt system that ignores alternate views.
You had two different arrangements of heating/cooling, which gave different results. If you heat something all the time, there's twice as much time for the residual heat to actively dissipate. I'm not sure what you are saying about this in relation to climate science. You doing some bathroom heating experiment is clearly not going to trump laboratories who've studied this under more controlled conditions.
Valid points, I did consider them though. I used 240 W worth of bulbs (not exactly 240 Watts impinging on the targets of course, just that value) of the same type from the same package, which I tested turning on for half an hour, and an hour, with half an hour/an hour off. I checked temperatures during this process so I could monitor the profile of warming and cooling.
I also used 120 W worth of bulbs, same types, from the same package, in varied orders to account for possible bulb quality variation, for an hour/two hours on. I checked temperatures during this process at the same intervals I checked with the 240 W tests. I performed these tests several times over several weeks, always leaving time for the room to cool to the same starting temperature between tests, varying the order of the tests, and deliberately doing them at the same time in the early morning with the same outside temperatures to attempt to account for heat dissipation through the walls.
I did various runs with a tub holding a small amount of water, with the first bags I had tried to inflate with CO2 (some messy baking soda attempts bleh) and later with the sealed in soda bottle method because it gave the most confidence that I could get very high CO2 concentrations in the bags. I was using styrofoam medical shipping containers with a vent in the top of the box that had a layer of plastic from the same freezer bags over it, with a vented box and a sealed box. I also tested altering the albedo of the containers by lining them with black plastic trash bags to dermine what effect there was. I tested with the tops completely off, with intact tops on, with the window unblocked by any plastic. I tested having the thermometer directly on the bottom of the box, on top of the tub, against the inside of the box, and as I recall I wound up using a toothpick with the thermometers hanging from them. Naturally I switched thermometers between tests to account for that source of error.
Finally I compiled all my data, and used it to determine the most reliable method to control for the effect I was testing, and performed another series of runs with the sealed/vented top, dry tub upside down with the termometer on it so air could flow around it, with the CO2/room air bag obscuring the window vent from the interior of the box.
Using a light bulb for the sun, and filling a small room with CO2 from a coke bottle to try and prove or disprove something about atmospheric CO2 is frankly idiotic and has nothing to do with the actual phenomena. The problem with the closed-room system is that all the light turns into heat energy. The actual "greenhouse effect" is about visible light that should get emitted into space, but gets reflected back to Earth because of particles like CO2. Since in yourclosed room, all light gets absorbed (by the walls if nothing else), the amount of CO2 would not make any difference to the energy emission rate.
I wasn't using it for the sun, just as a controllable energy source. The CO2 was contained inside of a large freezer bag, and mostly an afterthough because I couldn't actually remove CO2 from the room, fill it entirely with CO2, and so forth. It struck me that I could test using the bag+coke bottle apparatus so I repeated the runs with it.
Incidentally the radiative greenhouse effect states that the visible light which passes through the atmosphere and strikes the ground is the emitted as longer wavelength infrared, some of which is supposed to be absorbed by the atmosphere, reradiated back to the surface, and somehow warm it further.
The purpose of the window vent with the freezer bag plastic over it was to allow the light in so I could do the vented/sealed study, but I did coincidentally test the "IR trapping" concept to some extent, freezer bags are visible light transparent (mostly) and have a decent portion of infrared absorption. This no doubt reduced the effectiveness of my CO2 bag apparatus, but it is what it is.[/quote]