I want to see a test where they increase the amount of co2 by 60 parts per million and see what the effect is.

@MarkProffitt

4 жыл бұрын

None. The effect is none. He changed it from 400ppm to 1,000,000ppm.

@adambram

4 жыл бұрын

You would need a much longer tube. Imagine a transparent square image 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels. That's 1 million pixels total of empty space. Now imagine 400 pixels have a red dot. The red dots represent CO2. So it's just a 1000 x 1000 transparent image with 400 one-pixel red dots. Imagine stacking the images like Swiss Cheese. Each image has a thickness of 1 pixel. As you stack them the red dots multiply. Eventually, 400 PPM becomes incredibly significant. If they were stacked the thickness of the atmosphere and you tried to look through them, it would look like a red square. The point is that on an atmospheric scale, it matters a lot. Now consider that before 1850 each image would have had only 280 pixels. Today each image has 415 -- a 50% increase.

@sandrafrida

4 жыл бұрын

Search Geraint Thomas Co2 = real experiments from a real scientist.

@thespazticator

4 жыл бұрын

Geraint Thomas is a complete crank

@LK-pc4sq

2 жыл бұрын

@@MarkProffitt bulls shit its been proven in a lab.

Since it’s averaged over a large area, the increase is incredibly small, plus were talking about the heat from a candle which is already incredibly tiny. Now scale this up to the size of the earths atmosphere, And factor in things like radiator cooling that happens when there’s no clouds on the nightside, and you start to understand the complexity of the earths atmosphere system

@adambram

4 жыл бұрын

There are three factors that drive climate change: Greenhouse gases trapping heat is one of those three factors. This video does a good job of showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Many people dispute that because they don't understand it.

Some people do not believe that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the clip appears to prove that it is.

Excellent video, I was expecting and searching long time for an experimental proof, so simple and easily understood.

@climatecraze

2 жыл бұрын

The laboratory is not the real world. Here is why ... kzread.info/dash/bejne/i2GJqK-npb3Unps.html

@BladeJones

Жыл бұрын

This exaggerated experiment didn't prove anything. Humans have only added 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts total atmosphere over the last 150 years. The question remains how much does the adding of such a tiny amount of CO2 warm the planet -- that's if the CO2 isn't absorbed by the ocean or countered by some other feedback mechanism such as increased clouds?

So co2 stops the heat of the sun (candle) reaching the earth surface(camera)? So we should be getting colder?

Maybe we should be more worried about oxygen depletion than anything else

I am not sure what point it is you are making. Please could clarify for me:- 1) Burning fossil fuels (which are mostly made of of carbon) combines with the oxygen and nitrogen in air to form carbon dioxide. Agree / disagree? 2) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Agree / disagree? 3) Human activity emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and levels of atmospheric CO2 are known to be increasing in spite of increased absorption by plants and oceans? Agree / disagree?

If it was trapping the heat, wouldn't the general image be lit up? Cause that energy isn't just going to be destroyed xD !

@FeLiNe418

4 жыл бұрын

No. It means that CO2 trapped the heat and prevented it to reacg the thrermal camera. In case your ignorance-based joke was supposed to be funny, then... ha ha ha, very funny!

@thetooginator153

3 жыл бұрын

Joshua Legister - the reason the general image isn’t brighter is because the entire tube has absorbed the IR energy of the candle. It’s like pouring a cup of hot water into a cold swimming pool: yes, the swimming pool is warmer, but that difference is almost impossible to measure (especially compared to the cup of hot water). Also, a large portion of that IR energy is held by the CO2 molecules for a short time, so, the IR energy is released slowly. So, the combination of mass absorption and slow release makes the heat almost invisible on FLIR cameras.

Thank you Hank, I've been looking for an explanation such as you provided.

Failure to mention that levels have been 2000+ppm for millions of years earlier and Earth was much more lush. Vegetation thrives with more, not less.

"but if you replace the word 'block' (?) in your sentence with 'absorbed' then this is pretty much the greenhouse effect" No because Tyndall was testing maximum heat absorbtion threshold of a gas from a set tempature with his heating and measuring contraption...he wasn't shooting infared light at it and observing the reflect/pass/asorb rate to determine what kind of gas it was(infared spectrometor) Infared radiation id red light,,,thermal radiation or "heat" is a tempature of a object

I want to add that I have built 8-15 micron IR panels and when fired up to 1400 watts, they did not heat the air at all. They did heat objects just like the sun does on a cold windless day. In the open atmosphere, CO2 does not continuously absorb IR photons, letting more pass by than it absorbs and reflecting some IR back to space.

@pm71241

7 жыл бұрын

8-14 micron is not the area where CO2 absorbs IR ... 15 micron is better, (and 4.25 micron), but most commercial IR equipment is made to avoid going into the range of absorptions by greenhouse gas

@wayne487msc

7 жыл бұрын

I never said it (for CO2) was and already am aware of its absorption spectrum. But you bring up a good point. 8-15 micron is the human body's heat radiation frequency (peak is 10 micron). So for the effects on the human body does CO2 even matter?

@pm71241

7 жыл бұрын

Hank Justice dunno... depends on the application I guess (medical, security...) I just know that I've spend quite some time trying to find a cheap IR instrument sensitive to CO2 absorption ranges, and most of them are explicitly designed to avoid it (and using the window from 8-14 µm) in order to measure temperature reliably.

@wayne487msc

7 жыл бұрын

Good point. When a house is fitted with IR panels for winter heating, special thermometers must be used to get the correct "comfort zone" readings. 8-15 micron IR does not heat the air very much at all. CO2 does not heat the air by photon emission, but by vibrations.

@noone6489

5 жыл бұрын

even if co2 did absorb anything, which it does to an extent as it's a denser gas than normal air, it still will not increase temperatures of anything. Thermodynamics. The energy output is always at the most equal to energy input. Energy output cannot exceed energy input. That is perpetualism and that is not possible.

"The Keeling curve is older than my dad - not exactly the latest research " Keeling Jr still runs the show Co2 rides the Evaporation/Percipitation cycle in water vapour and varies from 0ppm-900ppm a second depending on time of day,tempature,humididy,wind,elevation and season Most important note is that observe rise does not "prove" source "So far, you do not think atmospheric CO2 is increasing" Well the Keeling station sees 400ppm(AVERAGE) with 4% humidity rise in evaporation/percipitation

I believe this proves that CO2 is an insulator. Steam or a cloud would have the same effect. Put 60 parts per million in the atmosphere in your tube and show me any temp increase.

@talleneagle1974

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah the flame was outside the tube. Infrared light in night vision glows white when absorbed with black clothing so if the claim it absorbed the heat it should have lot that whole tube up it either insulated the heat like you say which it would not be a greenhouse gas or it vibrates at the same frequency as infrared light and cancelled it out like an invisible cloak. I'm calling it bullshit.

The only great thing about this video is his accent! Too good!

@climatecraze

2 жыл бұрын

But the information is not correct. CO2 can not heat the earth .... kzread.info/dash/bejne/i2GJqK-npb3Unps.html

Yes, you are right - water vapour is a greenhouse gas. You keep making points that are nothing to do with the video clip being shown. And then not answering my question. This is just a simple demonstration to illustrate how the greenhouse effect works. Infrared radiation IS absorbed by CO2. A thermal camera has been used and set up ('rigged' as you put it) to look at the wave length at which cO2 absorption is pronounced as CO2 doesn't absorb significantly in the visible range.

@AndrejCibik

Жыл бұрын

Greehouse effect also claims it reemits this radiatio and heats up its original source. Which would be candle. Ridiculous statement

Chemical engineer here. Many variables in this experiment needs to be quantified. Temperature of the co2 gas, concentration of the co2 in the tube etc. Nice presentation but not terribly scientific.

My fuckin god. It really is that simple

@climeaware4814

Жыл бұрын

yuuuup! co2 resonates at the long wave length of thermal IR energy. co2 then vibrates and re transmits the co2 IR in all directions in most cases down to earth.

In general some ultra violet rays, of short length, penetrate the atmosphere and warm Planet Earth, & this causes waves of longer length, namely infra red rays, to shine 'upwards' from Planer Earth, and some of these UV rays get trapped by carbon dioxide, and cause global warming.

@Jim-pq9pm

7 жыл бұрын

And you use a model with insanely skewed proportions to support this hypothesis. Not very convincing.

@ako3379

7 жыл бұрын

why aren't people more concerned with water vapor which traps more heat than C02 ever will. also oceans are the largest CO2 sink, removing it from the air when it dissolves and adds to the air when ocean temperature rises. so could it be that the warming of the oceans causes C02 to rise dramatically and not the other way around? and what better source of energy could warm the eargh's oceans than the sun! yes the sun has cooling and active cycles too corresponding to sun spots and these correlate with the rise and fall in CO2 and global temperature. look up cold sun and john casey. nasa is way behind.

"Ocean temperature profiles and CO2, HCO3, H2CO3 depth profiles don't support it" I have a question. How does so little co2 in air heat so much water in the ocean from the bottom up?(there is way more water then air so its a ant fart making a gallon of water boil "logic")

@willyvanhauteghem8752

4 жыл бұрын

all the answers can be found in a pdf from NIPCC : Climate change reconsidered. It is a scientific and peer reviewed work, made by retired climate scientists. They do not support antropogenic climate change at all.

@AndrejCibik

Жыл бұрын

It doesnt.

That is not exactly how Carbon Dioxide works in the Atmosphere. CO2 is a certainly a Green House Gas, and as demonstrated by the simple experiment does absorb heat within certain Infrared bandwidths. It is a terrible insulator though and re emits the energy. (In under 5ms) In your enclosed experiment in a saturated CO2 environment it re emits to more CO2 but cant escape what is in effect ironically a glasshouse. In the Atmosphere the trapped energy is radiated up through the Atmosphere and into space. CO2 merely delays its progress and as there is so little of it compared to the other Greenhouse Gases such as water vapour is effect is so small within the noise of the other Greenhouse gases, it is impossible currently to prove it has any effect at all. If any one can tell me of an invention that uses CO2 as an insulator to retain heat I would really appreciate it. Im aware CO2 has been used successfully as a refrigerant but fell out of favour due to CFC invention.

I would suggest the burden of proof is on you. If carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas and the oceans are warming up as a result of plate tectonics as you claim, then please send me links to peer reviewed research which supports your claims. "How does so little co2 in air heat so much water in the ocean from the bottom up?". It isn't. You are simply making another claim which isn't supported by the research evidence.

Does anyone else feel the sun through all the c02 because that’s where the fucking heat comes from. lol!!!!! This is B.S.

Candle in tube suffers same effect as a mirage temp differential as expanded and now cooled gas is inserted.. injecting compressed Nitrogen would yield same results

demonstrating ideal gas law .. cold gas injected into tube from compressed canister (1:50) Would Nitrogen starting from same pressure do the same?

@db5351

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. The CO2 is under immense pressure in the cylinder, and will cool the air in the tube as it expands. Just look at a CO2 fire extinguisher operate - heaps of airborne ice particles form in the air making a cloud.

@02:26 if CO2 traps and absorbs heat then how can the sun's heat pass through it in the first place? The Earth would be getting colder not warmer!! I think Keeling should have taken samples from the upper atmosphere. Also CO2 is heavier than air so it should be on the ground than up in the atmosphere. I've placed CO2 in a square container, it disappeared after awhile. If CO2 is absorbed in the oceans then there should be less CO2 in the atmosphere and if the ocean's are acidifying then the brine in water should neutralize it to prevent it turning into carbonic acid. If trees and plants absorb CO2 through photosynthesis they aren't doing their jobs properly or there's something seriously wrong with photosynthesis!!!!

@aaryajain9771

3 жыл бұрын

Co2 can absorb only long wavelength IR radiations. Sunlight is short wavelength infrared radiations. Co2 is absorbed by the oceans, yet it's rising in the atmosphere. That's the concern. Oceans can't keep absorbing co2 forever. Brine is sodium chloride. It's pH is 7. It's neutral. Neutral substances don't affect acidic nor alkaline compounds. "If trees.....with photosynthesis" No, there's nothing wrong with Photosynthesis nor with the "jobs" being carried out by phototrophs. They can't constantly continue using carbon dioxide to whatever extent you want them to. If there's a surplus of food and someone tried to force feed you, your body just can't take in anymore food. Edit: don't bother reading ahead, he ignores all my arguments and makes stupid, non verifiable claims like a broken tape recorder

@PeterPete

3 жыл бұрын

@@aaryajain9771 got any proof of that?

@aaryajain9771

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeterPete scientific facts. I learnt this in school. Oceans can't keep absorbing carbon dioxide because there is a fixed solubility rate of CO2. Brine IS nacl. And Nacl is a salt. Salts are neutral

@PeterPete

3 жыл бұрын

@@aaryajain9771 have you any proof your scientific fact is a fact?

@aaryajain9771

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeterPete the range of infrared radiations falling on earth are from 6-22 micrometres. Co2 absorbs IR of wavelength 15 micrometres strongly. Everything else passes mostly. Shorter the wavelength, higher the energy. Therefore 6 micrometre wavelength has highest energy. Thus I was right in my statement. www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20strongly%20absorbs%20energy,radiation%20region%20of%20the%20spectrum.

The strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is a much larger percentage of our atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Water vapor has at least 70 times the heating value of carbon dioxide. Did you measure the percentage of water vapor in your lab chamaber? Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energy only within a very limited frequency range. It briefly holds photons of light at just two wavelengths: 4.26 micrometers and 14.99 micrometers. Carbon dioxide occupies only 0.04% of the atmosphere, or about 400 parts per million. What was the % of carbon dioxide in your chamber? Was it 50%, or 60%, or more? Your experiment means nothing, because you didn't measure that.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas (misnomer: greenhouses work by trapping air and preventing convection, not by trapping radiation). However, CO2 makes up only a small fraction of greenhouse gas with water vapor being the dominant gas. That being said, the global warming potential of CO2 is negligible and is easily offset by negative water vapor feedback, such as cooling from evaporation.

lmao

Co2 is a trace gas less than 0.04% of air and yet people keep doing experiments with these high Co2 concentrations.

@bobstrayer9004

5 жыл бұрын

The point of the experiment is to demonstrate that CO2 absorbs the energy coming from the candle.

@NajaCrudah

5 жыл бұрын

The temp. of a candle flame is about 1400 deg C. Maybe they needed concentrated CO2 for the demonstration to work, ( to absorb that high temp.) A spot on the earth's surface may only be warmed to 20-30 deg. C so a weaker concentration of CO2, though perhaps miles in depth) would absorb and re-radiate heat.

@SteveDondley

5 жыл бұрын

OK, so imagine that the CO2 in the atmosphere is concentrated in one layer encircling the planet. It was about 90 feet thick 150 years ago. It is now 135 feet thick. That's much longer than the tube in this experiment.

@halfthetruth

5 жыл бұрын

@@SteveDondley Haha CO2 is concentrated in one layer... But CO2 is much heavier than air and should then be near the bottom or fill sinks? A 90 feet thick layer of CO2 near the ground would suffocate everyone ....?

@grahamnumber7123

5 жыл бұрын

Yes and ice core studies that go back 1000's of years also show times of co2 way way higher than now. The next con will be that it was co2 that cooked the dinosaurs. Co2 is used in extinguishing fires by starving them of oxygen. What a ridiculous experiment.

I asked for a list of academic or scientific institutions that support your assertion that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Instead you have provided me with your rambling personal opinions on the causes of climate change and the international response.

As for that candle demonstration it isn't"Co2 asorbing heat"(thermal radiation in a object from its atoms vibrating) It is co2 blocking infared light(red light that comes off a heated object as its atoms vibrate)because co2 has a high reflect rate compred to asorb/pass rate...which is how a infared spectrometor can identify it and why military heat seeking missles couldn't find anything without changing the frequency of its ir camera Demo is rigged,that canera can be ajusted to see past co2

This is a con from a dishonest demonstrator. The CO2 is scattering the photons which the camera can no longer pick up. Pretty much exactly how a prism separates line spectrum as light passes through it to make pretty colors. He may as well have said, "Hocus Pocus!" In other words, if you didn't understand that the CO2 is simply scattering the light spectrum the IR camera can detect. Put a normal camera on that and it would look perfectly normal. Not trapping heat.

co2 scatters it, not traps it - and if this video were true, we should be getting colder, not hotter, because the heat isn't reaching us...

@andrewgrandahl

8 жыл бұрын

helloworld691 CO2 absorbs and then re-radiates heat energy. It's warming reaches us because we live on a planet with a closed atmosphere. It's actually that simple.

@hazynpeterson4083

8 жыл бұрын

+helloworld691 ...you misunderstand the videos information... if you compare how water verses air on how fast it will cool you or a hot piece of metal off....the heat doesnt go anywhere it builds up and is transferred

@noone6489

5 жыл бұрын

@@andrewgrandahl we do not have a close atmosphere. Lol. There is a sky above us. The earth does not exist inside of a plastic wrapped room. Heat and cool exchange between earth and outer space happens constantly.

It would have been relatively simple for him to add a fixed volume of CO2 to make it the equivalent of doubling the CO2 from say 400 to 800 ppm and show the difference in the flame. That would be more meaningful (and probably no visible difference) than adding his unknown amount of maybe 15% or 150,000 ppm....

@andyschocher8051

4 жыл бұрын

then he should have been waiting thousands of years, like in the nature.

Doesn't show anything that's relevant to earth's atmosphere! And the rise of atmospheric being assumed to be some sort of 'proof' is just lame.

wtf are you talking about man

if the gas was trapping the heat then you would see the whole chamber going red

@adambram

4 жыл бұрын

The gas doesn't heat up to the same temperature as the flame. It goes up slightly because it's distributed within the chamber.

@rodrigod4

4 жыл бұрын

@@adambram we have to believe that without evidence? Just keep the experiment going for a week, at some point the entire chamber should be seen red, otherwise the theory is wrong

@adambram

4 жыл бұрын

rodrigo The experiment shows that infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2. It also shows that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb CO2 since those were in the tube before the CO2 was released. I’m not sure what it is you have an issue with.

@rodrigod4

4 жыл бұрын

@@adambram no, tool, it only shows that its not passing across the tube, it doens show that it is "absorbed", much less it explains how could it possibly get into the earth but not outside of it, like it the co2 layer was working only in 1 direction

@adambram

4 жыл бұрын

@@rodrigod4 I am really just trying to understand what you think. 1: Does CO2 trap heat (e.g. heat leaving the Earth heading toward space)? 2: Does CO2 allow energy from the sun to come in without blocking it? Both of the answers are YES. Do you agree?

This "experiment" is a joke. Earth has a concentration of 400ppm in the atmosphere. This guy brings it up to above 500,000ppm at least. That's more than a 1000 fold increase. This doesn't prove anything as far as the temperature of earth.

@carlross4078

10 жыл бұрын

The 400 ppm of carbon dioxide does not trap all the infrared rays emitted from the Earth's surface; but they trap enough of them to increase the temperature of Planet Earth a "little". Moreover, whereas the total quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere amounts to less than 1% of the atmosphere, if they did not exist, we would freeze to death on Planet Earth. This small quantity of greenhouse gases on Planet Earth allows us to live comfortably at modest temperatures; they are not completely unwanted.

@tempersne

10 жыл бұрын

Carl Ross "The 400 ppm of carbon dioxide does not trap all the infrared rays emitted from the Earth's surface;" Ok. "but they trap enough of them to increase the temperature of Planet Earth a "little"." You don't know that. "Moreover, whereas the total quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere amounts to less than 1% of the atmosphere, if they did not exist, we would freeze to death on Planet Earth." This seems like a very dubious claim. Do you have anything to back it up? Plus CO2 only accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. That's 4% of 1%. There is no proof it has any perceivable effect. "This small quantity of greenhouse gases on Planet Earth allows us to live comfortably at modest temperatures; they are not completely unwanted." Ok.. so what did you post have to do with anything? The idea behind global warming is that a 100ppm (at maximum) increase in the atmospheric composition resulted in approximately a 0.5 degree increase in temperature. That is the claim. So where is the bloody proof that "every scientist" agrees with?

@carlross4078

10 жыл бұрын

tempersne The views that I have given are those of eminent scientists in this field of science; this branch of science is not my main field of study. However, it is interesting to note that Venus which has 96.5% of CO2 in its atmosphere, and has a surface temperature of about 460 C; enough to melt lead. It is true that Mars has a similar percentage of CO2 in its atmosphere as Venus, and it has similar surface temperatures as Planet Earth; however, it has a very thin atmosphere; amounting to 1/100th of the density of Earth's atmosphere. Thus, whereas Mars has a larger percentage of CO2 than Planet Earth, the total quantity of CO2 on Mars is only about double that of Planet Earth, because Mars' mass is only about 1/10th of that of Planet Earth and its atmospheric pressure is about 1/100th that of Planet Earth. Moreover, if the CO2 on Mars is about twice that of Planet Earth, why does Mars have a similar temperature to Planet Earth; when it is much further away from the Sun than Planet Earth? Planet Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun and Mars is about 140 million miles from Earth. Venus is about 67 million miles from the Sun.

@carlross4078

10 жыл бұрын

Carl Ross Typo above! Mars is about 140 million miles from the Sun and NOT about 140 million miles from Planet Earth!

@tempersne

10 жыл бұрын

Carl Ross "The views that I have given are those of eminent scientists in this field of science;" This means nothing. Science is not a religion with shamans. One of the "most eminent" scientists of all time was Einstein and he was a patent clerk. And even he would say the proof is in the pudding - not the man. "this branch of science is not my main field of study." So you goal here is to spread propaganda? "However, it is interesting to note that Venus which has 96.5% of CO2 in its atmosphere, and has a surface temperature of about 460 C; enough to melt lead." Yeah but if you read about that, Venus does not have water to reabsorb the CO2. "It is true that Mars has a similar percentage of CO2 in its atmosphere as Venus, and it has similar surface temperatures as Planet Earth; however, it has a very thin atmosphere; amounting to 1/100th of the density of Earth's atmosphere." Mars doesn't have surface water. "Thus, whereas Mars has a larger percentage of CO2 than Planet Earth, the total quantity of CO2 on Mars is only about double that of Planet Earth, because Mars' mass is only about 1/10th of that of Planet Earth and its atmospheric pressure is about 1/100th that of Planet Earth." Well that does not help prove the claim of global warming. If CO2 affects the temperature of a planet so much, it should be twice the temperature of earth. But mars is 1.5242 the distance from the sun over earth. "Moreover, if the CO2 on Mars is about twice that of Planet Earth, why does Mars have a similar temperature to Planet Earth; when it is much further away from the Sun than Planet Earth? Planet Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun and Mars is about 140 million miles from Earth. Venus is about 67 million miles from the Sun." I just said that. Maybe I should read your whole post before responding. It also does not have any water. You really do not know what is going on there and definitely cannot attribute it to CO2.