Is CO2 Really a Greenhouse Gas?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 окт 2022
- Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/actionlab The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
This video was sponsored by Wren
I show you an easy experiment to test if CO2 is really a greenhouse gas.
Shop the Action Lab Science Gear here: theactionlab.com/
Checkout my experiment book: amzn.to/2Wf07x1
Twitter: / theactionlabman
Facebook: / theactionlabofficial
Instagram: / therealactionlab
Snap: / 426771378288640
Tik Tok: / theactionlabshorts 
Наука
I was teaching Physics last year and tried this experiment. After half an hour there was no diffrence in temperature. Even though I was using plastic containers and an infrared lightsource. I came to the conclusion this experiment sucked and wanted to leave it out in the next years...
But I really like your simple setup! I will definitly try this in class.
@@dmitryisakov8769 Or even better, ask them to read the exact papers and studies that first claimed climate change is man made and let the smart kids answer the question whether it is merely by propositional calculus of the papers.
@@dmitryisakov8769 I think it was the 60s
The experiement did not suck.
It just proved something you did not like.
I got some change in temperature in my head after this . I just had to leave my headache and this videoclip alone !
You should've probably wrapped it all in the aluminum foil
After all, light doesn't travel couple centimeters through the gas, but tens and hundreds of kilometers, which you could mimic by reflecting light through the same environment many times
I love how simple these setups are sometimes. Literally duct taping a handheld infrared sensor pointing it at a hot plate on its side. And yet, it's perfect
Let’s not discount the plastic bags taped to a meter stick!
The most knowledgeable people can explain complicated concepts in simple terms, this guy is the real deal
It also suggests that IR thermometers may give differing measurements depending on the air-mixture in the surrounding environment!
Somewhat less than perfect I'd say
@@ericwazhung Shh 🤫Science does not has "differing" opinions
I have heard the argument that the amount of water in the air contributes more to the greenhouse effect than CO2. You could check that using a similar setup but with two bags of air. One with a desiccant pouch and the other with a small amount of water added. Let the bags sit for a while to maximize the difference in humidity and then see if that makes a difference. Preferably also compare it to a CO2 bag again to actually test that argument.
water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but earth has this special particularity where it exists in the exact temperature window where water can exist in the liquid form in the surface. meaning the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is relatively constant and affected by a bunch of different variables. one of them is temperature, the hotter the temperature is, more water vapor the air will retain. meaning that if you tip the balance of temperature with another greenhouse gas that stays in the atmosphere, like CO2, it will increase the temperature, consequently increasing the humidity of the air, consequently speeding up the greenhouse effect making the atmosphere retain even more water vapor, and so on.
@@danilooliveira6580 Why does water vapor not do this anyway?
@@robinwallace6259 I mean, it kinda does, but maybe without something to tip up the scales it will balance itself, climatology is very complicated. for example clouds reflect sunlight too, so it also counters climate change, so why doesn't water vapor stops climate change if clouds reduce the amount of energy reaching earth's surface and ? no fucking clue. or why was the Holocene average temperature strangely stable ? no idea. climatology is complicated and I'm not a climatologist. all I can give you is some simple things that I know to be true, and hopefully it will guide you on looking the answers for yourself. hell, I may even try to look for myself to learn more about the mechanics of the stability of water vapor in the atmosphere.
@@danilooliveira6580 that's not the argument. If all the wavelengths of infrared that co2 can absorb are already absorbed by water vapor, there simply isn't anything to absorb.
This is why the effect of co2 is logarithmic and not linear.
Also use an empty bag to show how you calibrated your test results to the test materials and not added materials. Same mistakes as the first glass experiment
well. your experiment could also be explained as that co2 reflects IR more than air does. It doesn't necessarily mean co2 is absorbing IR.
@@dmitryisakov8769 if reflection can only happen from surface, why are we able to observe the whole planet atmospheric boundaries from space?
@@dmitryisakov8769 im asking why i cant see reflection of a gas ? what is preventing me from seeing the reflection of a gas.
@@dmitryisakov8769 and if i change gas to liquid will then be i able to observe reflection ?
@@dmitryisakov8769 You can observe a reflection whenever there is a change of index of refraction. That's why mirages work.
The size of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with its absorbance and emission of IR, this it is the bonding of the atoms within the molecule that causes it.
Quantum mechanics and many measurements show CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation -- in a random direction.
Wouldn’t be the first time Bill Nye was wrong.
Are you referring to something
In atmosfer we have 440 parts per milion soo we cant compare with this experiment
@@pawepeszko9726 why is that important
I am not defending him bc i absolutely HATE what he's become, but he has at least admitted to being wrong about GMOs..
If that ain't the truth
Would be cool now to see this experiment done with other gasses, including both those that are considered greenhouse gases and those that are not. Air with different humidity levels would be interesting to test as well.
Methane should be next
Releasing that CO2 canister in the jar increased the humidity some.
It would be similar results, depending on how well the gas absorbs IR radiation. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, it just doesn’t change much, unlike the man made CO2. Methane on the other hand had a much higher absorptivity of IR so you would expect it see a bigger change than CO2 in the experiment. While methane absorbs more IR light, there is less of it in the atmosphere than CO2, which is often why we predominantly hear about CO2
@@abrumm87 The "green house gasses" should have a cooling effect on the earths surface as they absorb energy in the atmosphere rather than it being absorbed by the surface of the earth. When these gasses radiate the energy they absorbed they do so in all directions so half is radiated towards outer-space. The temperature of the atmosphere where most of this absorption of energy happens is cooler than the surface of the earth. Never has it been shown that a cooler object can warm a hotter object through radiation. Such a phenomenon would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
@@opossumlvr1023 You've misunderstood the mechanism. It's not about absorbing heat coming from the sun and hitting the Earth; it's about absorbing IR energy escaping from the Earth's surface as it cools. The planet absorbs EM energy from a wide spectrum, heating up in the process. It radiates energy in a narrow IR spectrum, and CO2's absorption spectrum is in the sweet spot to absorb that released energy. It then releases half of it out into space, but half of it goes back down to heat up the surface once again. .
1. The volume of air has to be the same as the volume of the CO2 in the bag.
2. A more accurate and less ambiguous way to do this, is put the IR thermometer and the heat source within a clear box with the same dimensions as this experiment, then start with air in the box, then displace it with CO2, then report to us all the change in IR emission from the heat plate detected by the IR thermometer, as the air is displaced.
3. This experiment only shows the transmissibility of the various gases, as you mention, it could also be showing that CO2 is a great reflector of IR light, not necessarily an absorber.
4. Given enough time and insulation from the rest of the room, the CO2 should actually heat up to the same temperature of the heat source, and then re-emit the same amount of heat ostensibly absorbed.
Even the thickness and weight would very wildly on same bag.
Exactly
The other problem is that CO2 doesn't emit heat, or reflect it. It absorbs it.
This is why CO2, when you pressurize it, actually gets colder: Because you're absorbing more heat from the surrounding environment as CO2 goes from gas straight to solid, as the compound is at the same time, trying to sublimate back from a solid to a gas.
@@isaiahwelch8066 Well, actually all gases heat up when you compress them, including CO2.
It doesn't really matter that much if the IR radiation is absorbed or reflected. If it is absorbed then it results in direct heating of the atmosphere. If it is reflected then it will go back to the earth where it will be reradiated and then rereflected, along the way getting absorbed by other gasses and of course the CO2 each time it reflects some because there is no such thing as perfect reflection. The main point is that the radiation will stay within the atmosphere whether it is reflected or absorbed.
The biggest problem that I have with this experiment is that who knows what wavelength of radiation is coming off of the hotplate. It needs to be the specific wavelength of radiation that the earth emits(I don't remember this number off of the top of my head and it's most likely a range of several wavelengths).
Does the IR thermometer read a single wavelength or is it measuring broadband IR? Also, if you have an atmosphere if 100% CO2 and there's only a tiny differential, how about testing it with 0.02% vs 0.04%? What difference will be visible, if any? Surely it'll be well into the noise floor of most measurement systems and would require extremely sensitive spectrometers. Then comes the question of comparing radiative warming vs diabatic at surface pressure (101kPa). Most studies I've seen prove that radiative warming of the atmosphere is an extremely small amount and diabatic (and adiabatic) completely swamp out any radiative warming in most layers of the atmosphere (bar the ionosphere/thermosphere). Also, on planets with near 100% CO2, there's a huge disparity. Venus (obviously closer to the sun) is much hotter than Mars (further away), but it is only hotter due to diabatic heating of the atmosphere. Its pressure is 90x that of Earth, vs Mars's atmosphere which is much less dense at 0.6% of Earth's atmosphere. Diabatic and adiabatic heating completely swamping out any radiative heating.
You beat me to the punch! CO is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the experiment only showed a few degrees of difference with 100% CO. Goes to show we probably got more important issues to worry about.
@@kyle.1442 How about urban heat islands? The massive amount of solar energy absorbed by concrete and asphalt causes directly observable climate change, such as 50%-100% increased rainfall downwind of cities, and nighttime temperatures in cities 20 degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer than surrounding areas. I don't understand how nobody is looking at this, the few studies done on it indicate a moderate to severe impact on the climate and yet everyone is focused on greenhouse gases instead.
@@kyle.1442 but the atmosphere is tens of miles thick. Can an IR sensor in space detect heat signatures from the surface?
@@areadenial2343 What I wish is that they would use heat batteries to store unwanted heat and ship it off to people that need it. If not that, how about pull it off roads, but return it to the road to prevent ice forming. It would increase the lifespan of the road, stop accidents due to ice, and help the local flora and fish from salt used to melt ice.
@@entelechy00 Sounds good in theory, in practice you'd be increasing the infrastructure cost significantly by adding thousands of miles of heat pipes under every road, not to mention the maintenance required to pump that much water/coolant around. There are already more environmentally-friendly de-icing solutions which are effective at lower temperatures, and more easily spread, so we should focus on improving those rather than tearing up every road in America. Although, replacing those roads with bike paths and train lines would reduce the amount of asphalt needed in the first place...
He checked the science the same way you check a math problem and solution you riddled out. He rearranged the dynamic to prove the concept in an alternative way. That's the kind of stuff that really makes me enjoy this channel.
He used the scientific method to check the science? Absurd!
@@F_L_U_X ⚠️ God has said in the Quran:
🔵 { O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - ( 2:21 )
🔴 [He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. ( 2:22 )
🔵 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. ( 2:23 )
🔴 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.( 2:24 )
🔵 And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. ( 2:25 )
⚠️ Quran
That is also why I am watching this channel
ahaa exactly!
There's a lot of good stuff in journals.
Bill Nye isn't exactly the guy I go to for facts.
The vast majority of the time, he's correct though. It sounds like you're just an asshole.
what did he do in the past?
he's a political hack
Fun fact: Nye photos hopped his thermometer shots. Every pixel in both thermometers was identical except the red lines. Nye is not just confused, but when his experiment didn't do what he wanted he just faked the evidence.
Too bad so many other people have done the experiment and got the same result. It's not really a great experiment. It's certainly not the one that scientists use to measure the greenhouse power of CO2. A 6-inch wide jar is not the same as a miles-deep atmosphere. Also, the experiment done here is botched. There's nothing in the jars for the light to hit. The hole point of the experiment is that visible light warms something, and CO2 reduces its ability to shed heat. In this case, light just passed through the jar, so you wouldn't expect to see any difference regardless of what gas is inside.
As for you claim about to identical pixels. I hate to break it to you, but the proper way to do the experiment is to do it twice with the exact same setup so that all possible variables have been eliminated other than the gas. Go figure, when the same camera is looking at the same thermometer under the same lighting and nothing's been moved, they look the same. If he's faked it, it's obviously a pretty advanced fake, since you can see the refraction of the blue fluid elsewhere in the glass. (Not red. Maybe you should bother to actually look so you can get your lies straight).
Actual Fact: Bill Nye is not a real scientist. He's a paid TV actor from the 90's. Nobody should be listening to him. Would you listen to Bob Barker about neutering your dog? no!
@@ryanj2768 Even more actual fact. Nobody cares if he's a "real scientist." If you don't want to listen to him, you should listen to the really real scientists who's results he's cribbing off of. The science is clear, and he's just the messenger.
Fun fact. John Tyndall did a similar experiment over a hundred years ago, he came to the same result
Which is weird. Nye's doing it for the right cause, why fake the evidence?
How do we know that the co2 is absorbing the IR and not reflecting it? It would still create the same effect by not allowing some of the IR through the bag.
It is well known that CO2 does not reflect IR, it only absorbs it. But it's a good question and it would be interesting to test it in an experiment. You would have to show that CO2 emits IR, which is tricky, but possible.
@@lorenkelley1568 Why not put the sensor on the same side as the burner to check?
@@lorenkelley1568 "You would have to show that CO2 emits IR, which is tricky, but possible."
Any absorber is also an emitter. The difference with reflection is that re-emission is in a random direction.
if it reflects it would also be known that it doesn't absorb "fully" the temperature... CO2 is just propaganda to put more money in government pockets
Even if it did only that, it would still be a problem that caused climate change as a significant portion of the reflected light would be directed back at earth.
I bet an entire channel worth of content could be created illustrating all the times Bill Nye was wrong, lol! Great video as always;)
should check out operation Popeye climate change is real and it is 100% man-made not by accident. That is why it will be used as the tool to mask the destruction of the global economy so they may rebuild a new forever separating the people and the tyrants in a new global structure system. There will be climate catastrophes all man-made they have been modifying the weather since Vietnam. Using it as a weapon.
For sure. Instead of studying science, he now "follows" "the science".
@@kyleduddleston4123 Most stupid comment ever.
@@k1ry4n Most ineffective Karen comeback ever.
@@kyleduddleston4123 Ineffective maybe. True nonetheless.
A minor point that wasn't stated outright, the Ziploc bags do absorb a small amount of IR radiation, but as demonstrated with the glass, not all of it. Since both gases are in Ziploc bags, they'll both have the same additional absorption and any difference we then see between the gases will show that CO2 actually is a greenhouse gas.
So many people seem to not figure that out.
They might also not figure out that, since air is present in all setups, the difference between the 'bag of air' measurement versus the 'nothing' measurement already give you how much the ziploc bags block IR light!
Co2 is also 50% more dense than air, so that could explain the higher absorbtion seen in this experiment.
I dont think this is a slam dunk setup to prove global warming is caused by co2, but i appreciate that its the best he can do on a table in his living room.
@@Nbomber most global warming comes from water vapour. Co2 is a greenhouse gas but most of its work is done by 300ppm. People don't realize co2 acts like a notch filter, a bit like poleroid glasses. These experiments were done over 100 years ago by Nobel prize winning scientists like Plank and Schwarzschild. They proved that after 400ppm you need to double co2 to 800ppm to get any extra absorbtion. If you're interested also look up Prof William Happer.
@@nigelliam153 thats pretty interesting actually.
Tbh, i wonder how much warming is caused by co2 to begin with. Theres a lot of people on the planet and they use a lot of energy. All of which eventually is dissipated as heat. Ive always wondered how much of an effect that has too.
According to a video from CDN youtube chanel featuring a climate science researcher, WATER VAPOR is the most important agent in affecting climate. By far since there is just so much more of it in the atmosphere.And that researcher was exploring the effect of CO2.
The plastic bag experiment worked because of the choice of bag material. The bags appear to be PE polyethylene (CH2)n which has significant absorption only at C-C stretch C-H stretch (and smaller absorption at CH2 wag) all different from C-O stretch and O=C=O bend from CO2. Plastics with more complex structure (and more absorption bands) will absorb to more wavelengths and the difference between CO2 and air bags will diminish or disappear. Also, most glass is transparent to IR for wavelengths shorter than about 6 microns. Glass is a good greenhouse material because most blackbody radiation is at wavelengths longer than 6 microns for earth temperatures.
This simple experiment gave us a 3% capture rate, climate models use 30%. Physicist Yong Zhong says his experiments result in approximately 5%. He also shows that a small percentage of wavelengths are captured and radiative forcing seems to be Independent of C02 levels. This experiment showed us that C02 will help stop radiation from reaching the Earth. not sure how that proves climate change or global warming. This was a bigger stretch than chicken littles claim.
He's using the same material bag for both gasses. In case of CO2 less infrared radiation from hot plate (Sun) reaches thermometer (Earth) !
You know a lot about green house cover and heat because I have a future project here in vest Sahara where I want the light but not the heat from the sun light and can't realy finde out what cover will be best. So far I have ended on pet because it should alou the heat to eskape but hope you could point me in the best direction.
@@eriknielsen1849 PE is the most transparent to IR radiation, but it probably does not solve the heat problem alone. Consider including a heat absorbing material. Phase change waxes with melting point about 20 C are available. I used a water pond as heat reservoir, but it lost effectiveness when the pond surface froze limiting thermal conductivity. In a next iteration, I would use Al rods to conduct heat to and from the pond bottom. My design is for cold climates. Ice is probably not a problem for you. Another strategy is to cover the greenhouse with a good reflector (aluminized bubble wrap, for example) and admit filtered light (chlorophyll absorption wavelengths, for example) through a light pipe. These are public domain solutions you are free to use.
@@drd4059 thank you very much knew you would have som good suggestions. I was run out of seartch ideas.
Would love to have seen the empty bag, control test, so we'd know how much the plastic absorbed.
How the hell would u do that? Put it in a vacuum chamber? We’re surrounded by air
As a concept it doesn’t matter since both gases have the same type of bag, so what it would show wouldn’t make a difference in the outcome.
I too would love, out of curiosity, to find out how much IR radiation the plastic absorbs. It might not have been needed for the desired result for proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas though, since both gases are placed in presumably identical ziplock bags with presumably the same material, and the experiment indeed showed that CO2 absorbs more IR radiation.
Hope this experiment is a way to wake us up to the imminent havoc climate change will bring.
@@Rekoyl116 they often come already sealed without air in them.
@@jay.viation That's true, a control with a uninflated bag would have been interesting, though the 2-layer thickness vs single layers spread apart might have been a wildcard. He could have cut the bag in half and used the 2 halves separated. So, 2 controls, and the 2 bags he used, but that would have made for a longer video.
I have dreamed of a simple demonstration like this being published for the general public. Simple, transparent, evidence-based, real, and relatable.
Thank you for doing this, it is a service to the world in dire times.
Except CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't quite translate to CO2 in concentration as an effect on climate. Take that bag of nature's air, put it under dynamic conditions. The Earth's global electric circuit, various pressures and temperatures relative to location in atmosphere.... Ok, I'm bored now. Surely more intelligent people than I know how to play real science or else publishing a science paper is the same as congress passing a bill to find out what is being legislated.
The question is about contributed amounts and what is inevitable . It is not real easy to figure out what hurricane is caused by humans and what isn't.
as CO2 is an irreplacable essential atmospheric nutrient for all green plants I find this type of 'climate' experimentation too naive for words. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere directly increases crop yield because IT IS A PLANT NUTRIENT. Farmers with greenhouses add CO2 to make their plants grow better - ask tomato growers in the Netherlands. And more heat is good, that speeds up plant growth too, check out the biodiversity in the equatorial jungles of the world.
@@MyMy-tv7fd That is an oversimplified viewpoint
@@MyMy-tv7fd This is not a helpful comment to calm climate alarmists. Too much heat and the plants will not survive. Different species of plants survive in a range of varying parameters.
Does this not only demonstrate that the C02 has "some" effect on the IR light? We might know from other experiments that it's absorbtion at work, but these results could be obtained if the light was being scattered, reflected or the like, couldn't it?
shhh, don't contradict the climate mafia (aka Soros Inc)
My thought exactly. 😉 these people conclude the way they want it to be.
Thanks for the video. It is interesting. I am curious what happens to the temperature of the gas in the bag? Is it strictly a spectrum filter/reflector or is it actually absorbing and rising in temperature? Thanks again.
That was my question. How much is being absorbed and how much is being reflected?
I can't believe Bill Nye never even verified his statement 🙈
He basically never does. Any of his "demonstrations" are flawed to the extent of being basically charlatanism. he does more damage to his cause than help.
Bill Nye can't tell you what a woman is.
Not the first time
Bill Nye the sold out guy.
Caution: one would have to measure the exact same volume in each of the bags to compare them scientifically, and maybe even the amount of molecules, AKA molars. Also, CO2 is 400 parts per million in our atmosphere. Are we even comparing apples to apples here?
Also UV and VUV light in the upper atmosphere may have a different response than the infrared alone. What frequencies of IR shall we measure? UV can also split CO2 in the presence of O2
Remember, we are noticing a small difference of 10 points over 300, or approximately 1/3 of a percent. Thus even small changes in bag volume could account for this discrepancy.
All these factors must be accounted for to be accurate.
Good Video as always👍 Keep it on 👍👍👍👍
Could the IR source be inside the jar with the gases someway?
"... what can you do about it ..." I know what I want to do now. For my museum lab I tried to run the same initial experiment, with the same results. Now I'd like to modify your second experiment into an exhibit involving an interactive diorama. Thank you for the ideas!
You're doing great work, thank you!
This might be a stupid question, but I’m just curious as to why you’re using IR over UV light, and glass over plastic containers?
CO2 absorption happens in a particular band in the *IR* spectrum.
Okay...... IR is basically heat. And the heat levels is the major concern with CO2.
Plants love co2 and sequester it while producing oxygen.
The planet has never been in danger if overheating. It has however had a problem with freezing.
Using the results of this experiment, what would the heat retention of Co2 be compared to air?
At night the Commercial Greenhouse's have to heat them to maintain the temperature, probably because of the construction of the walls which remove the heat. Sand is a fantastic absorber of heat but at night temperatures in the desert can get below freezing, despite temperatures of over 40 Deg C during the day. With sand you only have to bury your hand 10cm below the surface and it will be much cooler than the surface.
Just because something absorbs heat does not mean it retains it. Water absorbs heat and retains a huge amount of stored heat over night. A trip to the local pond with a pair of IR Thermal goggles, just before sun up proves this.
Suddenly this simple proof of a Greenhouse Gas absorbing heat is raising questions about its ability to retain heat. Particularly during the night when the IR source is turned off.
You have a bag of air, a bag of Co2. Apply your IR source for a set time. measure the heat of each bag, then remove the IR source and see which one retains heat for longer.
Measuring the heat retention of the CO2 wouldn’t matter in the case of the bags. The heat from each bag would dissipate through convection and also radiation out to the atmosphere around the bags.
The earth doesn’t have an atmosphere around the atmosphere. Since CO2 absorbs more heat, once the sun goes down it transfers the heat to the rest of the atmosphere and the process starts again when the sun comes around again.
Air lets the IR radiation from the sun bounce back to space better than CO2 does. CO2 holds onto it and release it to the rest of the atmosphere better than air
@@rdear you are thinking there is only one layer of atmosphere there are more than that and each one can absorb and radiate out to the next one.
It is not a closed loop scenario otherwise we would have had run away heating when the atmosphere had over 4000ppm, the greatest explosion of life on the planet, or even when it was over 9000 ppm.
@@daelrance6866 it’s a very closed system. One atmosphere. Even if the “other layers” absorb the heat, it’s still in the same atmosphere.
The only way to get heat to leave the earth is to have it radiate via IR back into space. If the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are keeping the IR from reflecting back to space it stays here.
And average global temperatures used to be much higher millions of years ago when CO2 concentrations were higher.
@@daelrance6866 Also, CO2 isn't as effective at heating from IR as water vapor. People don't freak out when there's clouds around but they absorb a great deal of IR heat, then dissipate it back to the atmosphere. And CO2 is extremely hydrophilic so the entire CO2/greenhouse gas argument is completely bogus because we have paleontological evidence that higher CO2 levels aren't as harmful as claimed.
@@rdear Probably because CO2 lags behind temp.
how do we know the bag of co2 isn't scattering some of the IR light away from the sensor versus absorbing some of it?
Also put a bag of water vapor behind each bag and see what you get
What happens if you measure the back of the bag for ir reflection?
Plastic does not reflect IR.
@@MrIbib but does co2 reflect ir?
@@Chaoticrandomness102 no, it absorbs it… that’s the whole point.
Now do the experiment where Dutch farmers increase co2 levels in their greenhouses to 1000 ppm to optimize growth as opposed the 200 ppm naturally occurring
There is no better teacher than the past and/or real observation. Long ago C02 levels were multiples higher than today. The Earth was lush and green and life was thriving. Time is irrelevant the Earth didn't burn, it thrived. Global temperatures have been on a flat to downward trend for about 8 years while CO2 has gone up considerably. NASA shows the Earth to be about 15% greener, mostly in arid regions. Polar bear populations are up considerably, despite the claims. NOAA data says weather events have not incresed or gotten worse no matter what the media or politicians say. People are not dying because of climate change. Climate/weather related deaths are down approximately 98% over the past century. Self-proclaimed climate prophets are buying houses on the beach, rising sea levels be damned. We allow up to 1000ppm CO2 as safe inside our children's schools. Real world data and observation seem to be contradicting the theories, models and hard hitting reports.
Yes plants love CO2... 200PPM is where plants have big problems 425ppm or 0,04%is the content in the atmosfere not 200ppm
That experiment has be done thousands of times, but people deliberately leave out that you also need to increase water and nutrients at the same level. Its call Cherry Picking.
@ElRey_Congo
1000ppm??????
No. SOME plants will grow better with increased CO2.
But most will begin to show detrimental growth at that concentration.
You are full of it!
You should also mention, that H20 is compared to CO2 a much more absorbing / greenhouse gas!
Yes, and explain how H2O, unlike CO2, is condensable and therefore water vapour is a climate amplifier not a driver.
The way a geologist explained it to me is that the major flaw with CO2 causing global warming is they intentionally side-step deminishing returns. And their experiments always show this when they are asked to expound on the data. As CO2 fills the atmosphere it actually has a lesser and lesser effectivness to act as a greenhouse. Imagine you park your black car in a hot sun with the windows up vs with the windows down. The car gets hotter with the windows up, obviously. The car is acting like a hot house...But now make the glass of the windows 3/8" thick vs the original 1/4". It gets hotter yes? By how much? You increased the glass thickness by 50% but is it now 50% hotter? No. What if you make the glass 1" thick....2" thick....5" Thick? Is the heat in the car now 20 times the temperature? What if we make the windows out of 5" of lead. It simply doesn't work that way and neither does global warming from the sun. Make it totally sealed and it will actually keep the air inside COOLER than ambiant. Man made global warming always seems to ignore the data from ice caps that shows that the earth has been warming for over 10,000 years with some eras spiking co2 for decades in pre industrialized centuries. I told him, it's All of those SUV's and coal burning factories back in Summeria,, and those vikings with outboard motors.
Do you know what a rate of change is?
The only people who seem to not know about long-term heating and cooling of the planet is you people. We all know that over time the average temperature of the planet changes over time, you're not blowing anyone's minds. If you actually took the time to understand the stuff that you're attempting (and failing) to disprove, you'd know this. Our current anomaly is the highest it has been in 100,000 years, over 10 times greater than your false estimate.
The current rate of temperature change is far, far too high to be natural, it cannot be explained by the sun, nor geological activity, or any other non anththropogenic source, because it is anthropogenic.
Now do the same experiment with a bag of water vapor. The original paper that first described the greenhouse effect talked about water vapor causing it. Because water vapor aka clouds is what is actually responsible for most of the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere.
Water vapor is not clouds, and clouds are not water vapour. Clouds actually prevent heating due to albedo by reflecting visible light.
Water vapour is indeed also a greenhouse gas, it exacerbates the effect as warm air tends to contain more of it.
@@landsgevaer We need to stop labeling everything a greenhouse gas. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If air containing water vapor is a greenhouse gas then pretty much all air on earth is a greenhouse gas now.
@@JustinL614 The water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
@@landsgevaer Low level clouds reduce temperature; high level clouds overall do the opposite.
So, heat up the room to 212 degrees so he can capture a bag of water vapor? That would be a sweaty day.
You can't capture water vapor in a bag at room temperature. You can capture humid air and do a test, humid are vs dry air.
But, yes, water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, however, it's also temperature dependent. If CO2 turns up the dial 0.2 degrees, that 0.2 degrees holds more water vapor which increases the temperature another 0.2 degrees. That's called a feedback. CO2 is the volume nob. Water vapor is the feedback, at least for Earth-like temperatures.
I'm also curious what effect the pressure difference between the co2 bag (it looks much more inflated so possibly at a higher pressure) and the air bag has on this test
The pressure, being proportional to the moles given the similar temp and fixed volume of the bag, would mean that higher pressure means more gas and thus more IR absorption. As he mentions, this is essentially a spectrometer, which means that we we could think of using Beer’s law. And yes, a pressure difference might constitute a “concentration” difference and path length difference, the true difference in absorption comes from the difference in molar absorptivity for CO2 vs air. Meaning that I think the minimal pressure diff isn’t having a huge impact. Cheers
How big does our bag of CO2 need to be at a given concentration to absorb 100% of the narrow wavelength it can absorb? Does a smaller bag and a larger bag of CO2 have the same impact as the first bag of CO2, demonstrating whether or not your first bag was past this saturation point?
I asked the same question more or less. See Hug et al. The world doesn't fit in a zip lock baggie. IR absorption is a function of distance, once saturation is reached all of the available energy has been absorbed.
AND we know co2 is greening the planet and that plants release aerosols that cool the planet.
This experiment isn't relevant in the real world and yet bill nye still faked the results
This is the first time I heard the name 'Bill Nye'!
5:27 Your repetition of the words 'air, co2' reminds me 'Dora the explorer '
It would be nice to know what causes IR absorption in molecular bonds. Is this absorption the result of atomic bonds vibrating when exposed to radiation? In addition, I would point out that there are layers of gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are mixed by the winds, otherwise everyone on earth would have died from lack of oxygen. Because we denote O³ for the upper limit of the atmosphere or ozone. Therefore, I would like to see an experiment with different gases in one vertical tube to see which gases are distributed where and which are mixed together by spectrometric analysis.
Your conclusion leaves a lot to be desired. With science you need to be careful to ensure you're measuring what you want/need/think you're measuring. You simply showed that the CO2 prevented some of the IR energy from reaching your sensor, but it doesn't show why. It could have been absorbed, or reflected in a different direction. Additional work and experiements are required to reach the conclusion you jumped to.
Hey brodizzle, did you put in any co2 absorbing substrate? That matters also.
The problem with carbon offsets is that many of them are scams. I'm skeptical of Wren.
Its all a scam and a hoax. We know this but governments wont stop taxing CO2.
The CO2 properties in the atmosphere reflect and absorb heat. So the affect in the atmosphere is more neutral than explained. Also real scientists have shown the temperature of the earth increases before the increase of CO2. Check out PHD William Clapper on you tube.
Exactly, it's the sale of indulgences, but in the physical world.
Excellent demonstration, but I'd like to see it again including air plus CO2 at 0.04%, or the actual atmospheric mix.
I think co2 in atmosphere is measured in ppm. Around 4ppm.? Parts per million
@@TheRainHarvester 0.04% is 400 ppm. Or math has changed recentrly ?
@@tauntaun1507 That’s not math, that’s chemistry and math in tandem, and you’re wrong!
@@mrperfect87106 He's actually correct. 0.04% is 400 ppm
@@mrperfect87106 1 ppm is .0001%. Multiply that by 400 and the result is .04%. So how is he wrong?
You should use quartz jars (crystalline silicon), not ordinary amorphous silicon.
"Is CO2 Really a Greenhouse Gas?"
Yes.
You should have placed an empty bag in between, just to see what effect the bag itself had on this experiment.
It would have the sane temperature as the bag filled with air. As the amount of air to plastic the IR has to go through would remain constant.
Would be interesting to see how much difference 0.03% co2 made?
He PROVED that HIGHER CO2 levels are NOT A PROBLEM.
The bag contained 100% CO2. and he got a 10 degree CHANGE in temperature.
But we are talking about CO2 levels that are .04% of the atmosphere. Not 100%. That means we can only use .04% of the 10 degree temperature change observed. That's a measly .004 degree increase in temperature with CO2 levels at 400ppm. And humans are only responsible for 100ppm of that. So the HUMAN contribution to "Global Warming" is only .001 degrees.
Sigh. One wants to see a result in seconds! In reality, the temperature increase takes many decades! Obviously, one needs much more CO2 here.
Several lines of evidence demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm would result in 3 °C higher temperatures.
Sigh😂
Enderwiggin, no need for eye rolling arrogance. I have an enquiring mind and I was simply curious to see what would happen when running the experiment with levels of co2 close to reality would produce? I’m not denying Co2 is a greenhouse gas and I would completely expect to see these results with pure Co2, surely if the the discussion is about levels of Co2 why not do the experiment with different levels of co2 rather than it being all or effectively nothing (0.03%)
@@enderwiggin1113
Actually, it would be more interesting to see a second bag of CO2 placed in series. If the first bag absorbs nearly all of the IR then there won’t be much difference.
@@briansauk6837 Why not simply a larger bag?
Would it not block IR from the initial source as well? And if it absorbs it, wouldn't it just release it at a later time, just slow it down somewhat? Sounds a lot like insulation to me. And insulation blocks both ways usually.
1. It does block IR from the initial source (the plate) here. That is exactly what's shown.
2. The absorption of IR transforms it into heat, which will be partially released as IR but mostly transferred to other molecules... eventually a given quantity of heat energy will be all radiated away... but in that time it already absorbed more additional heat. So a system with more CO2 instead of Oxygen will remain at a hotter equilibrium temperature.
3. Yes, CO2 indeed blocks/absorbs sunlight both ways. First when it enters the atmosphere, then again when molecules on earth reflect it or transform heat into new IR radiation.
4. Yes, it's insulation. That's why greenhouses or iglos are often used for comparison, which also use principles of insulation to trap heat in a particular place (that place being all of earth in case of global warming).
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N the world isn't as simple as this lab experiment. The effect of co2 is logarithmic, not linear. Water vapor already absorbs most of the ir co2 can absorb. And Co2 is greening the planet, increasing the amount of plants which in turn release aerosols that have a cooling effect.
Look up the greenhouse effect sometime. The visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere virtually without loss. The surface of the earth reflects some of this light(which is the light that we see) the rest is absorbed and eventually radiated back out to empty space as invisible infrared radiation. Most of that radiation is lost to space but some is absorbed by greenhouse gasses like water vapor and co2 and radiated back toward earth. This process is what keeps earth from being a frozen wasteland like mars(which has no water vapor and very little co2 in its atmosphere). Joseph Fourier actually calculated what the temperature of the earth should be based on its size and distance from the sun if it were only get heat directly from the sun and found that to be -18 degrees celcius, thus proving that something was causing the planet to retain heat.
Won't the transparent plastic bag also trap IR light? I've seen some greenhouses use transparent plastic sheets instead of glass.....
Yes, the bag also traps infrarred (IR) light! But since we are comparing bag+air versus bag+co2, and both bags are the same type of bag, the blocking effects of each bag are made irrelevant.
Matter of fact, if you want to see the effect of the bag, you can see the reading drops when either bag is placed in front of the sensor, from 350 to 315 in the bag of air, and 350 to 305 in the co2 bag.
Actually, since the bag of air is presumably filled with the same air as the room,, you could argue that the 'bag of air' measurement is actually a measurement of just the effect of the plastic bag! So, it contributes to a difference of about ~35 units in the reading.
Interesting how other parameters are discarded when the result fits the desired outcome.
"Lets fill it with CO2"
Nice! But quite a leap to go from showing that CO2 is a stronger IR absorber than Air, to reducing personal carbon footprints.
I know, fresh air has .04% co2 the other bag had i think, had wayyy more than that, still had little effect.
i trust science, i just don't trust scientists anymore, because any scientist that don't get the correct results
THEY (billionaires) want gets defunded and deplatformed.
It's a segway to a sponsor. I believe the science ends when the commercial begins.
What is the pressure in the bags?
What your experiment told me is not to bag up the exhaust as it comes out of my car. Thank you for that.
Thank you for a good and simple demonstration. It's pretty amazing that anyone ever used glass containers for this kind of experiment.
Interesting, so assuming 100% CO2 you get a 3% difference in absorption vs air, I wonder what the difference would be from current air (~400ppm CO2) vs whatever the best projections of future CO2 ppm are
Did you remember to use kevlin? if not the % absorbed would be much lower
CO2 won't be the only factor in temperature rises. With enough of an increase, ice can start melting in colder areas which will reduce the Earth's albedo and open up more space to absorb more energy.
can an increase of about 0,001% in heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere change the climate?
@Daniel Meyers According to the experiment there is a (
@Daniel Meyers you could just design the model to account for that. Seems they choose not to.
how do you know the co2 in the bag isn't reflecting, or refracting the light? The glass isn't absorbing IR light.
Yes it is, he stated that.
And how much water vapour is in those bags?
Take that Bill Nay
so, if there would be an object inside each bag, that absorbs visible light and emits that energy as infrared light, then the object in the co2-bag would increase it's temperature, because it can not radiate off that collected energy ... right?
Well, it does radiate off the captured energy in all directions. But yes, the CO2 bag itself should be hotter than the air bag. A thermometer inside the bags would have read a warmer CO2 bag . . . slightly. The temperature radiates away fairly quickly and some of the heat would be lost to expansion, so that would require a more sensitive measurement.
You'd also need to have the 2 bags spend the same time at the same distance from the heat-source, so more could go wrong. You'd need to carefully measure distances and be sure the heat source radiated equally in both directions.
@@YTEdy put water vapor In both bags as well, see what you get :p
@@brandonstone2754 Why both? The purpose of a test is to test one thing against another, so water vapor in one, not the other, but that's harder to do because there's already water vapor in the air. We call it humidity. It's also quite thin at room temperature.
@@YTEdy water vapor absorbs most of the ir, it's like the original experiment where the glass jar blocked all the IR so there was no difference with co2.
In the real world water vapor functions as the glass jar
@@brandonstone2754 Not sure what you mean by "water vapor is the glass jar", but I agree on the rest.
The problem is, CO2 is a gas at room temperature. Water vapor is water at room temperature, with a very thin gaseous equilibrium. You can't do the experiment with water vapor unless you heat up the room considerably, or unless you incorporate a vacuum and use much larger containers.
One thing i learned here.... every science experiment requires some degree of duct tape
What is the ppm in the c02 in the bag? 90% 80% 75%?
Nice demonstration. I have two questions
1. Can it be demonstrated with CO2 at 400ppm ? and
2. As CO2 is heavier than surrounding air then why does it cause such a big problem in the upper atmosphere?
All answers kindly received. Thank you..
Gases only sink in air when they're collected together. Dispersed throughout the air it would be carried around with collisions of other air molecules. Gas mixtures don't self differentiate, as far as I know.
The one with air is 400 ppm CO2. Do you mean compared with air without CO2 at all?
@@DANGJOS Yes and also one with CO2 at a pre-industrial value and one with the current CO2 value. Are the very small percentages even detectable in an IR experiment? This would be a most useful demonstration imo.
@@CosD I think that probably would be hard to detect. The thing that the earths atmosphere is gigantic but that bag is definitely not.
The truth is the results would be immeasurable with his setup with those tiny parts per millions of CO2.
It would need to be a much larger scale experiment with much more accurate measuring equipment and a much stronger emphasis on controlling the variables.
The question is what effect does the increase in co2 from 300ppm to 400/500 ppm have in the IR absorption - have you tried that ?
It was done by Max Plank about 100 years ago and doubling it from 400ppm to 800ppm makes vertually no difference.
Look up Prof William Happer
He is probably the worlds leading expert on co2 reradiation.
The CO2 concentration in these experiments are far far above 300 or 500 ppm, I guess closer to 900000 ppm. CO2 only holds a narrow band around around 15 micron wavelength. All the short- and longwave IR goes through. And we don't see the effect of latent vertical convection in these experiments at all.
I agree with Nigel Liam. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is so weak it does not really matter. H2O is the monster running the show.
If the atmosphere was 100% CO2 , as the gas in the bag was, the absorption of infra red energy would rise by about one thirtieth, if the figures, 315 and 305 mean anything. As one watcher has pointed out, we want to know what happens if the 0.035% of CO2 in the atmosphere is raised to 0.04%.
I suspect it won't make any observable difference. The demonstrator must have a good reason not to show the more realistic version of the experiment?
@@davidlawrenson2103 Yes he does have a good reason for that... He doesn't have a chamber 100+km long!
You know, to represent the thickness of the atmosphere.
if 100% CO2 in just 2cm's can block 1/30 of the energy then, over 100km (5 million times the distance), but at lower concentrations we're still talking about a small but significant fraction of the energy... and as the amount of incoming energy is HUGE, a small fraction of that is still a lot of energy.
Ofcourse it would. There is more infrared absorbing gas, so more infrared gets absorbed. but over just ~2cm, and with just a hotplate the thermometer wouldn't be accurate enough to measure the difference.
in real life however instead of a 2cm bag we'd be talking about at least 100km of atmosphere (5 MILLION times the distance). and instead of a hotplate we'd be talking about the sun.
The question you might ask is what is the absorption rate of IR in CO2 at 100% versus ambient air where CO2 is only 0.03%. I’m betting it’s too small to make any difference in the ambient air temperature of the earth.
Yes!! You are correct.
He just PROVED that HIGHER CO2 levels are NOT A PROBLEM.
The bag contained 100% CO2. and he got a 10 degree CHANGE in temperature.
But we are talking about CO2 levels that are .04% of the atmosphere. Not 100%. That means we can only use .04% of the 10 degree temperature change observed. That's a measly .004 degree increase in temperature with CO2 levels at 400ppm. And humans are only responsible for 100ppm of that. So the HUMAN contribution to "Global Warming" is only .001 degrees.
If you heated both jars shouldn't the air cool faster than the CO2?
"I needed one bag of CO2 and one air bag, so I filled one bag with CO2 from a CO2 canister and then crashed my car..."
As a kid, I just assumed that Bill Nye was picked to host the show because he had a PhD and a whole host of other relevant qualifications.
So when I found out that he only had a BS in mechanical engineering and was picked because he had enough charisma, it felt like the scene from The King's Speach where the king finds out that Captain Barbosa wasn't a real speach therapist.
His acting career really boosted him up there.
He also failed as a stand-up comedian. Now he's just an NWO puppet.
Then you watched 6 minutes of his Netflix show and wanted to re-enact the "Brooks was Here" scene from Shawshank...
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is always hot to cold. Never cold to hot.
Air gaps in structures work great for sound "proofing" (I know that decoupling vibrations is part of that). BUT, I wonder, if that air gap could be filled with CO2, would it effect sound? Total out there question...(probably too insignificant)
Lets start with this: The 'runaway greenhouse effect' is not talked about anymore because we found out that co2 was much higher in most of earth's past and we never had a runaway effect then, so it will not happen now. In fact, phanerozoic co2 follows temperature by 800-3000 years. This means that temperature happens first, then the carbon cycle of our planet adjusts accordingly. Colder water stores more co2. It is really simple. It is NOT the co2 affecting temperature. Now, some may argue that with higher co2, even though the plants and animals of the time could take it, we can't. In fact, the co2 outside is 400ppm and inside its 1000 ppm. In an office building it can be 2000 or 3000 ppm. We can easily stand co2 levels from a quarter of a billion years ago. In that time, when co2 was high, plants and animals were bigger. You see, co2 is plant food. Thats it. Plant food. Now, if you flooded the entire atmosphere with it, maybe you would have some warming. But at 400 parts per million, just a mere 200 ppm away from a mass die off event, we are ok.
But you conventiently ignore the current temperature anomaly that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic sources, because you do not understand it. You are attempting to hand-wave using large timescales, 200 years is not a large geologic timescale, friend.
@@xero2715 YES 200 years is not enough to gauge anything, including the effects of assumed cause. However, you can look at the vostok petit ice cores and see that we are ON PAR with the ice age heartbeat. 90k years of cold, 10k years of warm. The warm period gets really warm just before the precipitous fall. Look at the charts yourself. Most people don't know this, but there is a giant ball of burning plasma around 1.3 million times earth's volume standing over us day after day. The ipcc has intentionally left out solar forcing until ipcc7. Why? They say its effects are poorly understood. If that is so, then why are nasa scientists able to predict conditions on other planets for landing probes using the sun?
but what if CO2 just scattering IR Light, not absorbing?
Right. Neat experiment, but not relevant to the problem of human pollution.
very valid
It absorbs, and reemits as black body radiation.
The point is that sunlight comes in in the visible range, to which air is transparent, heats the Earth, but the IR that the Earth then emits is then unable to escape.
@@landsgevaer It does escape just not at a high enough rate. The earth is not a closed system.
@@landsgevaer yes yes but the funny thing is all of this is natural what is unnatural is that humans are still sleeping and have not figure out that they have to develop the plant just like the life inside of us develops are kingdom
How much does the plastic bag effect the readings?
Dude just disproved a social media fact 😂
...I thought that CO2 was a greenhouse gas because it's transparent to UV radiation, but it's only translucent to IR radiation.
Because of that, the UV radiation that penetrates the atmosphere, heats up objects on the ground, but some of the IR radiation that's emitted from those hot things gets absorbed by the CO2, keeping it here on the planet, as opposed to radiating out into space.
CO2 is the gas of life.
@@douglasmacrae8947 Yep! Just look at Venus.
I, a physicist: That' s not how...
Action Lab: There's a lot wrong with this setup.
I: I knew I could trust you!
I was sitting there staring at the glass jars thinking "...But glass blocks infrared light. Of course there's no difference."
Could you get a result using inflated balloons concurring the properties of one elemental gas and the other just plain atmospheric gas?
Could you demonstrate how Moon Light is Cooler than the Moon Shade?
Very nice demonstration. Next compare a bag of low humidity air vs a bag of high humidity air since H2O is also an absorber of IR. Too bad no one has ever shown that efforts to reduce carbon footprint have any effect on CO2 level, or that global temp has correlated nicely with CO2 level (it hasn't). What about the benefits of warming? The benefit to plant growth of higher CO2? btw, when is the next Ice Age coming? What would be the effect of a little warming on the onset of the next Ice Age?
@Clifs World Because it's not about what they say it's about. The obvious is CO2 becomes a tool for governments to racketeer the people and some countries to racketeer other countries. But also, by misdirecting attention away from real pollution (chemicals, carcinogens, microplastics) Big Business gets to pollute all they want as long as they make pretend gestures about CO2 - sure it costs them money, but it costs their smaller competitors more, comparatively. So it is another tool for Big Business to defeat smaller competitors. Then donate some of that to politicians
Don't forget this was about a 2,475X increase in CO2 levels for only a 3% increase in temperature! That's an absolutely insane amount of CO2 for a small amount of increased heat. If anything this shows CO2 levels make no noticeable impact to temps on earth, since Earth's atmosphere will never be anywhere close to 99% CO2.
I try my best to educate people on how close this planet was to plant death (occurs at 150 ppm CO2, earth's CO2 crashed to 180 ppm from natural highs in the thousands) before human activity began restoring balance to the atmosphere.
Not the first time I've had reason to question exactly how much "Bill Nye the Science Guy" actually knows about science. Been questioning his words for years.
Well...he's not a scientist...so you should probably take *everything* he says with a grain of salt. He knows what's written in the script...and that's about it.
That won't stop him from lecturing and preaching his agenda to anyone who will listen though smh
I grow a lot of Trees. Wren did not ask how many Trees I grow. Instead, he wants me contribute to some fund to grow trees. I'd rather grow them myself and I should get credit for it.
You could also get two jars and put identical incandescent flashlights in the jar.
Greetings,
I'm a very big fan of your content, and I appreciate what you are presenting.
I'm an Arabic native speaker and I'm studying Chemistry at Aleppo University.
It would be my pleasure if you allowed me to work with you by subtitling your content to Arabic language.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you for your time.
Or you can ask industrial greenhouse owners who have to increase the heat in greenhouses at night even though they pump extra Co2 up to 1200ppm in to greenhouses to increase crop productivity & returns.
Yes and I was explaining the effect lowering the CO2 would have in plants in aquatic environments to Professor Brian Cox, set off his ego and he blocked me.
I explained to Michael Mann who one of his papers was wrong and he used a DVI in the wrong way and his conclusion was wrong and the same thing happened.
And on and on it has gone like that.
They make big claims but they do little research, leave out this they don't like and don't explain themselves.
Then present it like it's proven when it's not.
@@saintallnights7239 you have added yourself to my “ he’s a good one” list ✌️
1200ppm over a distance of what? 3-4 meters in height for a greenhouse? vs a extra ~130ppm over 100km of atmosphere... Gee i wonder why.
Also, what CO2 does is slow down the loss of heat out to space, not stop it entirely. For the greenhouse analogy that means that if they didn't add the CO2 they'd have to add more heat at night.
edit: furthermore the vast majority of energy loss at night those greenhouse experience is through thermal-conducting, through the glass, not infrared radiation losses.
The earth in space, doesn't experience that at all. it can only lose heat through infrared radiation.
@@TheCountess666 they do add more heat at night, sounds like you missed the point of my post.
I understand some of them use fans to "pump" the enriched CO2 air up above their crops from ground level where CO2 likes to sit due to its density. This is why I think the greenhouse analogy is misapplied as CO2 isn't really slowing entropy in the same way a greenhouse does.
So - could this experiment with the bags also show that CO2 is reflecting the infrared? How would we know that it is absorbing the infrared vs. reflecting it?
Can you isolate modes of heat transfer? For instance if radiation is inhibited how will that effect conduction/convection and in the earth's case latent heat transfer.
Thank you for showing us this nice, simple experiment.
You should have let the co2 in the bag warm up to room temperature to make sure that wasn't influencing your result.
blah blah
He did
H2O is a much better greenhouse gas. Should find out pretty soon because the upper atmosphere has 5% more water because of an undersea volcano.
How do we know that the energy was not reflected?
He can quite easily put the laser on the other side and try that!
As particles excite, they pass on their excited state to other particles. So it's not as simple as people claim.
The bags are also surrounded by air, so the air filled bag should not have a significant IR drop. What you are measuring is the IR absorption of the plastic bags. Calibrate the empty bags.
There could also be a difference because of different densities of the gases having higher pressure. You are filling the CO2 with cold gas, that will then expand.
Fill the CO2 bag by placing dry ice into it and allow to come to ambient temp before closing the bag. Alternately, use soda bottles without caps, just place a bit of tape over most of the opening to contain the CO2.
It doesn't matter if the bags absorb IR light because both the air and CO2 bags use the same bag. So they will have the same amount of IR absorption from the bag so you can ignore it. As long as any interference applies to both the CO2 and the control, it can be ignored.
As for pressure, until the bag is full, the gas will expand until it matches the surrounding atmosphere. So both bags should be at 1 atm.
@@syawkcab I think the bags can hold more than 1 atm. How much more? It might be close to negligible, I don't know. Depends on the strength of the materials.
I think that the experiment is apparently up for debate, when there are obviously no one who is completely satisfied with that kind of simple setup for solving such a serious problem as climate change in a lab ?
@@syawkcab how do we know the bag of co2 isn't scattering some of the IR light away from the sensor versus absorbing some of it?
I think you disproved a hunch I had about IR thermometers. I thought there was a correlation between temperature and wavelength. But youe experiment would seem to show that those thermometers measure flux rather than wavelength. That would explain the low cost of IR thermometers. Now I'm going to have to look into this.
Thanks for the video.
There *is* a correlation between the temperature of an object and the amount of blackbody radiation of a certain wavelength it emits! So, by assuming the object is not emitting radiation other than blackbody radiation in the specific wavelength the thermometer is using (and it's a rather fair assumption), then you can use that to measure temperature without any issue!
Thank you for great video!
I believe Co2 has overlapping qualities with green house gas because it reflects IR light opposed to absorbing it. Still having a reduced effect, just differently? It would be interesting to have a spectrometer adjacent with the other one to see if anything is coming back.
What comes back is the black body radiation, which depending on temperature is also somewhere in the IR.
@@landsgevaer Yes the carbon lowers the temperature also, changing the spectrum. So we cant really tell how much is being absorbed or reflected. Because if there is reflection happening, then refraction can occur also! and that would be a neat experiment.
What do you mean CO2 reflects IR. How would it do that?
@@Red.Rabbit.Resistance What do you mean by the carbon lowering the temperature?
@@Red.Rabbit.Resistance Where did you get the isea that a gas can *reflect* light?
Bill Nye and NDT... birds of a feather.
Do a follow up video where you compare air to CO2 to something like a super greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride
That experiment showed only a 3.48% difference in temperature. I would suggest that with the infinite possible variations in influences present, that is insignificant.
This is actually very simple tbh... I do have a question, would a normal torch/flashlight work instead of the Heatplate?
The heat plate is a better model for his testing equipment.
CO2 absorbs only a particular band of infrared.
@@godfreypigott ooh.. that's interesting
With fire, it should work, yes! Flames can be dangerous and can move around, with is bothersome for the experiment, but other than that, it should work.
However! With a flashlight, depending on the flashlight, it might not emit a lot of infrarred light, so you might not see any effect at all.
In fact, this experiment is 'technically' performable with any object -- a dog, a TV, a chair -- since all objects emit _some_ amount of infrarred light. However, because the starting amount is so small, the sensor might not be able to detect any differences at all :/
Try the experiment with 400ppm CO2 instead of 100%
try to understand the point of the video before you comment
@@irek1394 your comment seems to be an attempt to shame me, you tell me to shut up because I'm not able to understand. That's an ideological reply, not a scientific one.
The point of the video was to place a commercial ad about a company, and my comment was not about that. It was about the logical flaw (from a scientific standpoint), can you spot the flaw?
It extrapolates the conclusion drawn at 100% CO2, to a 0.04% CO2.
How do you know at 400ppm the effect is not even stronger?
:o)
@@RoGeorgeRoGeorge ...
it just shows that CO2 absorbs more infrared light than air nothing more and nothing less you bringing up specific gas mixes is missing the point of the video
@@irek1394 The title "Is CO2 Really a Greenhouse Gas?". That's why bringing the ppm, and because the video is presented as a scientific experiment when in fact the experiment was designed to prove a predetermined conclusion, that conclusion being we should give money to a climate change business. It's a paid study to prove whatever the payer is asking to demonstrate.
However, you replied because the more realistic experiment I was saying might have not been able to prove your belief. You've been conditioned to be annoyed, and dismiss whatever/whoever questions the narrative, to be disgusted (maybe that's why the arrogance in your first reply).
About global warming, I don't know enough to demonstrate anything about that, or if it's caused by us or by some other factors, so I won't argue about any of that, you might be right.
So glass not only blocks UV, but also IR.
How exactly are warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons a bad thing?
Melting of Antarctica and Greenland, and raising the ocean levels, is a bad thing.
@carultch Antarctica is not melting. The temperatures are practically always below freezing. Greenland being green again like during the Medieval Warming period when the Norse people named it is not a bad thing. Sea levels are not rising at anywhere near an alarming rate, either. Ice melting in the ocean does not cause the sea level to rise. The sea level can only rise if water that is on land makes it to the ocean. That is not going to happen with only a few degrees increase in the average temperature.