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.

@spudbencer7179

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@spudbencer7179

Жыл бұрын

@@dmitryisakov8769 I think it was the 60s

@whitemale7736

Жыл бұрын

The experiement did not suck. It just proved something you did not like.

@Kimhjortsbjerg

Жыл бұрын

I got some change in temperature in my head after this . I just had to leave my headache and this videoclip alone !

@blinded6502

Жыл бұрын

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

@whoshotashleybabbitt4924

Жыл бұрын

Let’s not discount the plastic bags taped to a meter stick!

@HouseTre007

Жыл бұрын

The most knowledgeable people can explain complicated concepts in simple terms, this guy is the real deal

@ericwazhung

Жыл бұрын

It also suggests that IR thermometers may give differing measurements depending on the air-mixture in the surrounding environment!

@SodiumInteresting

Жыл бұрын

Somewhat less than perfect I'd say

@NPC-bs3pm

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@danilooliveira6580

Жыл бұрын

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.

@robinwallace6259

Жыл бұрын

@@danilooliveira6580 Why does water vapor not do this anyway?

@danilooliveira6580

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@andrewsmith1735

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

@dr.jekyll2017

Жыл бұрын

Even the thickness and weight would very wildly on same bag.

@farmboy6218

Жыл бұрын

Exactly

@isaiahwelch8066

Жыл бұрын

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.

@GeeTrieste

Жыл бұрын

@@isaiahwelch8066 Well, actually all gases heat up when you compress them, including CO2.

@maxwilmes958

Жыл бұрын

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).

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.

@jrchannel7405

Жыл бұрын

Methane should be next

@SoundsLegit71

Жыл бұрын

Releasing that CO2 canister in the jar increased the humidity some.

@abrumm87

Жыл бұрын

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

@opossumlvr1023

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@welwynwheels3658

Жыл бұрын

@@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. .

Wouldn’t be the first time Bill Nye was wrong.

@crackthefoundation_

Жыл бұрын

Are you referring to something

@pawepeszko9726

Жыл бұрын

In atmosfer we have 440 parts per milion soo we cant compare with this experiment

@SodiumInteresting

Жыл бұрын

@@pawepeszko9726 why is that important

@djsnowman06

Жыл бұрын

I am not defending him bc i absolutely HATE what he's become, but he has at least admitted to being wrong about GMOs..

@curtisbarkes6271

Жыл бұрын

If that ain't the truth

You're probably much starter than me, so here's a question that just came to me after watching your video: Your experiment shows CO2 can absorb more IR light than Air (mixture of mostly Nitrogen, then Oxygen) If we look at the increase in Atmospheric CO2 in PPM (1/1000000) in the last few years 2017 - 406.76ppm 2018 - 408.72ppm 2019 - 411.66ppm 2020 - 414.24ppm 2021 - 416.45ppm 2021 - 2018 = 9.69 ppm increase Does this mean the increase in 4 years to the total volume of Air was 0.000969%? (9.69/1000000)x100 If this thought is correct, how can an increase of 0.000969% affect temperature? I'm not saying I know the answer, but the increase seems so negligible at least on these years. Accounting for older data: 1959 - 315.98ppm the difference is now 100.47 PPM. or 0.010047% increase of CO2 in the total volume of air. This amount could not be negligible anymore. Where I'm going is, could climate change be due other factors and not really CO2? are we barking at the right tree? Just a thought.

@kasroa

Жыл бұрын

The main reason is that the other 99% of the atmospheric gases (ignoring water vapour) don't really absorb or trap IR radiation. So going from 0.02 to 0.04 sounds tiny but what you have done is doubled the available gas in the atmosphere that can absorb CO2. This has huge consequences for the delicate balance of absorption and radiation of energy from the sun. And this process has been happening for almost 200 years, it's not a new thing. Add in other gases like methane, water vapour increases due to rising temperatures, deforestation, and feedback mechanisms like melting ice, and you end up with the disaster we're now living through.

@arnesaknussemm2427

Жыл бұрын

@@kasroa what disaster? Calm down and stop acting like an hysterical dumb politician.

@BradoQ

Жыл бұрын

@@kasroa lol... It's a scam. There is no disaster we are living through

@thinkamajig

Жыл бұрын

there is a greenhouse gas that is 23000 times worse than co2. annual emissions of this gas are co2 equivalent to 100 million cars and this gas is stable in the atmosphere for 3200 years. sf6 so by using said gas we add 100million cars of co2 equivalent that will stay in the atmosphere for 3200 years PER YEAR. but it's required for the distribution of electricity so you don't hear much about it.

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

@@kasroa now include water vapor which absorbs most of the ir co2 can. Put water vapor in the bags, see what you get.

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.

@kyle.1442

Жыл бұрын

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.

@areadenial2343

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@chicosajovic7680

Жыл бұрын

@@kyle.1442 but the atmosphere is tens of miles thick. Can an IR sensor in space detect heat signatures from the surface?

@entelechy00

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@areadenial2343

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@F_L_U_X

Жыл бұрын

He used the scientific method to check the science? Absurd!

@1islam1

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@Very_Grumpy_Cat

Жыл бұрын

That is also why I am watching this channel

@varunahlawat9013

Жыл бұрын

ahaa exactly!

@Eduardo_Espinoza

Жыл бұрын

There's a lot of good stuff in journals.

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.

@hobgoblinhollow4966

Жыл бұрын

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.

@NPC-bs3pm

Жыл бұрын

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.

@MyMy-tv7fd

Жыл бұрын

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.

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@@MyMy-tv7fd That is an oversimplified viewpoint

@JustinL614

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

@miloddvoranak8900

Жыл бұрын

@@dmitryisakov8769 if reflection can only happen from surface, why are we able to observe the whole planet atmospheric boundaries from space?

@miloddvoranak8900

Жыл бұрын

@@dmitryisakov8769 im asking why i cant see reflection of a gas ? what is preventing me from seeing the reflection of a gas.

@miloddvoranak8900

Жыл бұрын

@@dmitryisakov8769 and if i change gas to liquid will then be i able to observe reflection ?

@xero2715

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

@lorenkelley1568

Жыл бұрын

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.

@iviewthetube

Жыл бұрын

@@lorenkelley1568 Why not put the sensor on the same side as the burner to check?

@thomasmaughan4798

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@win132001

Жыл бұрын

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

@TheCountess666

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

@dannyp9537

Жыл бұрын

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.

@STRS

Жыл бұрын

He's using the same material bag for both gasses. In case of CO2 less infrared radiation from hot plate (Sun) reaches thermometer (Earth) !

@eriknielsen1849

9 ай бұрын

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.

@drd4059

9 ай бұрын

@@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.

@eriknielsen1849

9 ай бұрын

@@drd4059 thank you very much knew you would have som good suggestions. I was run out of seartch ideas.

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.

@sinisterthoughts2896

Жыл бұрын

So many people seem to not figure that out.

@joseabarzua8831

Жыл бұрын

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!

@Nbomber

Жыл бұрын

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.

@nigelliam153

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Nbomber

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

@PeterHowell

Жыл бұрын

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).

@ryanj2768

Жыл бұрын

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!

@PeterHowell

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@darthmaul216

Жыл бұрын

Fun fact. John Tyndall did a similar experiment over a hundred years ago, he came to the same result

@TheAdvertisement

Жыл бұрын

Which is weird. Nye's doing it for the right cause, why fake the evidence?

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.

@sadietz100

Жыл бұрын

That was my question. How much is being absorbed and how much is being reflected?

I bet an entire channel worth of content could be created illustrating all the times Bill Nye was wrong, lol! Great video as always;)

@clearmind3022

Жыл бұрын

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.

@kyleduddleston4123

Жыл бұрын

For sure. Instead of studying science, he now "follows" "the science".

@k1ry4n

Жыл бұрын

@@kyleduddleston4123 Most stupid comment ever.

@kyleduddleston4123

Жыл бұрын

@@k1ry4n Most ineffective Karen comeback ever.

@k1ry4n

Жыл бұрын

@@kyleduddleston4123 Ineffective maybe. True nonetheless.

Good Video as always👍 Keep it on 👍👍👍👍

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?

@supermaster2012

Жыл бұрын

shhh, don't contradict the climate mafia (aka Soros Inc)

@theeraphatsunthornwit6266

Жыл бұрын

My thought exactly. 😉 these people conclude the way they want it to be.

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.

Would love to have seen the empty bag, control test, so we'd know how much the plastic absorbed.

@Rekoyl116

Жыл бұрын

How the hell would u do that? Put it in a vacuum chamber? We’re surrounded by air

@Che1ito

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jay.viation

Жыл бұрын

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.

@pariscloud2907

Жыл бұрын

@@Rekoyl116 they often come already sealed without air in them.

@YTEdy

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

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.

@JustinL614

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@@JustinL614 The water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@@landsgevaer Low level clouds reduce temperature; high level clouds overall do the opposite.

@YTEdy

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

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.

@joseabarzua8831

Жыл бұрын

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!

Bill Nye isn't exactly the guy I go to for facts.

@eatshitlarrypage.3319

Жыл бұрын

The vast majority of the time, he's correct though. It sounds like you're just an asshole.

@theeraphatsunthornwit6266

Жыл бұрын

what did he do in the past?

@jamescollier3

8 күн бұрын

he's a political hack

Nice! But quite a leap to go from showing that CO2 is a stronger IR absorber than Air, to reducing personal carbon footprints.

@redbullwithoutapause7835

Жыл бұрын

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.

@sinisterthoughts2896

Жыл бұрын

It's a segway to a sponsor. I believe the science ends when the commercial begins.

Hey brodizzle, did you put in any co2 absorbing substrate? That matters also.

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.

@syawkcab

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Inertia888

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Kimhjortsbjerg

Жыл бұрын

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 ?

@blengi

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

Excellent demonstration, but I'd like to see it again including air plus CO2 at 0.04%, or the actual atmospheric mix.

@TheRainHarvester

Жыл бұрын

I think co2 in atmosphere is measured in ppm. Around 4ppm.? Parts per million

@tauntaun1507

Жыл бұрын

@@TheRainHarvester 0.04% is 400 ppm. Or math has changed recentrly ?

@mrperfect87106

Жыл бұрын

@@tauntaun1507 That’s not math, that’s chemistry and math in tandem, and you’re wrong!

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@@mrperfect87106 He's actually correct. 0.04% is 400 ppm

@JustinL614

Жыл бұрын

@@mrperfect87106 1 ppm is .0001%. Multiply that by 400 and the result is .04%. So how is he wrong?

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?

@godfreypigott

Жыл бұрын

CO2 absorption happens in a particular band in the *IR* spectrum.

@travissmith2848

Жыл бұрын

Okay...... IR is basically heat. And the heat levels is the major concern with CO2.

Thank you for a good and simple demonstration. It's pretty amazing that anyone ever used glass containers for this kind of experiment.

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?

@misterdubity3073

Жыл бұрын

@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

@bobbygetsbanned6049

Жыл бұрын

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.

@ericfeldkamp3788

Жыл бұрын

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.

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..

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

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.

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

The one with air is 400 ppm CO2. Do you mean compared with air without CO2 at all?

@CosD

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@shydead1392

Жыл бұрын

@@CosD I think that probably would be hard to detect. The thing that the earths atmosphere is gigantic but that bag is definitely not.

@joshuaewalker

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

@abrumm87

Жыл бұрын

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

"... 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!

@TheAdvertisement

Жыл бұрын

You're doing great work, thank you!

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.

@rdear

Жыл бұрын

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

@daelrance6866

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@rdear

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@loyalargus5618

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Steve_Just_Steve

Жыл бұрын

@@rdear Probably because CO2 lags behind temp.

I can't believe Bill Nye never even verified his statement 🙈

@sinisterthoughts2896

Жыл бұрын

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.

@mgratk

Жыл бұрын

Bill Nye can't tell you what a woman is.

@stickykitty

Жыл бұрын

Not the first time

@gavincurtis

Жыл бұрын

Bill Nye the sold out guy.

@synersonix

Жыл бұрын

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.

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?

@mudguts77

Жыл бұрын

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.

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

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

Could the IR source be inside the jar with the gases someway?

Whenever you use a direct heatsource to mimic how the the atmoshere is heated, you will get a bad result. This is the setup i use with my students. 2 clear plastic bags (4L or 1gallon) A and B 2 pieces of black carboard (10cm*10cm or 4*4 inches) 2 digital thermometers O2 and CO2 In each bag you put a thermometer (make sure it is on) and at piece of cardboard. A you fill with O2 and B you fill with CO2, close the bags and note the temperature. Now place the bags outside in a sunny area for 15min, side by side. There will be a significient difference now. This works because we are using the albedo effect to heat the cardboard and thus the gas inside. The wavelenght of light can pass though the gas, but the wavelength of heat, cannot pass through CO2 = it gets warmer. We are not adding heat from a heatsource, but creating the same amount of heat from inside the bag, via the albedo effect

You should use quartz jars (crystalline silicon), not ordinary amorphous silicon.

Would be interesting to see how much difference 0.03% co2 made?

@mtaylor3771

7 ай бұрын

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.

@enderwiggin1113

5 ай бұрын

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.

@theobster

5 ай бұрын

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

@briansauk6837

5 ай бұрын

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.

@enderwiggin1113

5 ай бұрын

@@briansauk6837 Why not simply a larger bag?

The CO-2 bag MUST dissipate the "extra" heat it absorbed. I would like to measure the heat loss of each bag, the time it takes to dissipate the heat the CO-2 absorbed? In which DIRECTION does the heat dissipate? What would happen in a controlled outer enclosure? Where is the IR going?

I'm so glad you did this experiment. Now you should try it with point one percent co which would be twice the amount it currently is in the atmosphere.

@grindupBaker

2 ай бұрын

The troposphere is a tad taller than his plastic bag stud.

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

@dannyp9537

Жыл бұрын

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.

@eriknielsen1849

9 ай бұрын

Yes plants love CO2... 200PPM is where plants have big problems 425ppm or 0,04%is the content in the atmosfere not 200ppm

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.

@T33K3SS3LCH3N

Жыл бұрын

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).

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@maxwilmes958

Жыл бұрын

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.

The problem with carbon offsets is that many of them are scams. I'm skeptical of Wren.

@fivish

Жыл бұрын

Its all a scam and a hoax. We know this but governments wont stop taxing CO2.

@robdow6348

Жыл бұрын

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.

@dansw0rkshop

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, it's the sale of indulgences, but in the physical world.

This is such an important experiment to show to the actuality deniers of climatic changes due the the real properties of CO2!- Being the driver of driving moisture and other infrared absorbers in the atmosphere. (Methane release too from the permafrost, deep ocean and man's methods of farming.)

Thank you for showing us this nice, simple experiment.

Oh wow, Bill Nye is a hack. I'm shocked.

...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.

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.

@mtaylor3771

7 ай бұрын

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.

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?

@YTEdy

Жыл бұрын

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.

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

@@YTEdy put water vapor In both bags as well, see what you get :p

@YTEdy

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@YTEdy

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@ShawnSwander

Жыл бұрын

Did you remember to use kevlin? if not the % absorbed would be much lower

@zecuse

Жыл бұрын

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.

@2manypeople1

Жыл бұрын

can an increase of about 0,001% in heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere change the climate?

@2manypeople1

Жыл бұрын

@Daniel Meyers According to the experiment there is a (

@ShawnSwander

Жыл бұрын

@Daniel Meyers you could just design the model to account for that. Seems they choose not to.

The CO2 absorbs more IR than the air because it's more dense just as you mentioned earlier in the video, if you want to measure it correctly you would add the CO2 to air to match density.

@Fritz_Schlunder

Жыл бұрын

According to physics/chemistry, an ideal gas always occupies 22.41 liters, per mole of gas molecules, at standard temperature and pressure conditions (STP), regardless of what type of gas it is (so long as it qualifies as an "ideal gas", rather than something else, like clouds, which are not an "ideal gas", and are actually a mix of gas and microscopic liquid water droplets). In other words, for both CO2 and ordinary air (at the same pressure and temperature conditions), the "molecular density" (ex: the number of molecules per cubic centimeter) of both gases is the same. The CO2 gas does however have higher "gravimetric density", as each CO2 molecule is heavier than an average air molecule. Consequently, if you measure the mass of each bag shown in the experiment, the bag with the CO2 should be slightly heavier, assuming otherwise identical fill volume, temperature, pressure, and amount of plastic material used in each bag. However, for the purposes of infrared and other electromagnetic radiation absorption, it is the molecular density of the medium that matters, not the gravimetric density. When a photon of infrared light passes near a molecule of a gas (such as CO2 or air), there is a certain probability of interaction of that photon with the molecule. If you pass the photons through a thicker medium (ex: by adding more total CO2 to the bag, thus making it thicker, albeit at approximately the same pressure), there will be more opportunities for the photon to get absorbed by a gas molecule, as the photon will necessarily have to pass in close proximity to more total molecules to reach the other end of the medium. Increasing the pressure increases the molecular density of the gas, which will also have the same effect of increasing the probability of interaction of the photon passing through the medium, even without increasing the thickness of the medium. In other words, the data from the experiment shown in this video was potentially valid, although in order to be actually trustworthy scientific data, he would need to do at least one control experiment to demonstrate that the reduction in IR transmissivity through the CO2 filled bag was in fact due to the CO2 fill gas, rather than some other factor (such as the wall thickness of the two plastic bags potentially being different). One way to do this, would be to remove the gas from both plastic bags, and then verify that the IR transmissivity through both bags is effectively the same (ex: implying that the plastic bag wall thicknesses are effectively the same, since plastic objects do transmit relatively longwave IR wavelengths of interest to the IR thermometer, but the plastic material is still somewhat opaque, as demonstrated by the reduction in reported "temperature" for the air filled plastic bag, as compared to plain air with no bag in between the sensor and IR source). Another control experiment that could be done, would be to swap the fill gas of the two bags (ex: empty both bags, then fill the bag labelled "air" with CO2, and the bag labelled "CO2" with air), and then repeat the experiment. If the two experiments both indicated the same result (ex: the bag with the CO2 fill was reducing the IR transmissivity, regardless of which bag was being filled with the CO2), then the results would be much more trustworthy scientific data, as such experiments would demonstrate that potential differences in plastic bag wall thickness was not a likely source of error in the experiments.

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)

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.

You should also mention, that H20 is compared to CO2 a much more absorbing / greenhouse gas!

Biochar is a fertilizer that can be transported to where soil enrichment is needed after a soil has been depleted of nutrients. I hope the company sell this valuable product. Also if I want to heat my house I really need double glazing with carbon dioxide between the sheets of glass to absorb infra red and help keep the heat in my house due to less temperature gradient. The inventor's network I am with looks at facts like you showed and try to apply them usefully. Nice video.

@ilyarepin7750

Жыл бұрын

double glazing with Co2 between sounds like an expensive and useless product. Co2 leaks over time, even from compressed air tanks. The co2 will eventually escape and render your double panel worthless.

Could you demonstrate how Moon Light is Cooler than the Moon Shade?

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.

@xero2715

Жыл бұрын

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.

@tribalismblindsthembutnoty124

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

What happens if you measure the back of the bag for ir reflection?

@MrIbib

Жыл бұрын

Plastic does not reflect IR.

@Chaoticrandomness102

Жыл бұрын

@@MrIbib but does co2 reflect ir?

@MrIbib

Жыл бұрын

@@Chaoticrandomness102 no, it absorbs it… that’s the whole point.

The first time I noticed with my own observation what a greenhouse gas does, was from CO2 gas. I was using night vision in the army and someone sprayed a CO2 fire extinguisher, it blocked most of the thermal light sorta like a dense cloud can block sunlight. The scattering is quit strong in IR range. Was really cool to see why it warms. If an object emits black body IR, and it hit CO2 some is backscattered. The scattering must logically increase with an increase is CO2. Later on working on AH64Ds, I noticed what a fart looks like in FLIR and noticed that we emit some greenhouse gas from both ends.

@dave8599

Жыл бұрын

Keep in mind that the expanding gas from the extinguisher is ice cold do to it rapidly expanding, that alone will cool what your IR detector can see. Even plain ole air will get cold when rapidly expanding. Use your brain, do buy into the global warmist lie.

@krisreddish3066

Жыл бұрын

@@dave8599 It would sound better if you would have said " the colder more dense CO2 scatters more IR" and left out the political agenda and backhanded insult. NVGs do not detect temperature with IR, it is a basic near IR flashlight and light amplification. For that you need a thermal imager like FLIR.

@theeraphatsunthornwit6266

Жыл бұрын

CO2 from fire extinguisher is cold because gas expanding, not because it block IR... this is not relevant i think

@krisreddish3066

Жыл бұрын

@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 It blocks IR by scattering. It shows up as cold but then you cannot see beyond it. You can with your eyes but the sensor sees nada. In any case the scattering of various wavelengths by IR, is textbook stuff. You can even spray into a room with a motion detector then walk around in room without setting it off. Done that too.

@theeraphatsunthornwit6266

Жыл бұрын

@@krisreddish3066 if that is the case, then bonfire should block ypur night vision too because burning produce a lot of co2

When I was in grad school the experiment we had our students do in A100 labs was they would have a beaker of water they would shine a light though to heat up the water. Although with this video it is a wonder how much of that was absorbed by the glass and how much by the water. Actually we had 2 lights an incandescent light and a fluorescent light so 2 beakers.

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.

@saintallnights7239

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Saintash1964

Жыл бұрын

@@saintallnights7239 you have added yourself to my “ he’s a good one” list ✌️

@TheCountess666

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Saintash1964

Жыл бұрын

@@TheCountess666 they do add more heat at night, sounds like you missed the point of my post.

@burtybasset4486

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

The two bags are not inflated to the same extent. This could cause part of the difference in temperature readings. I am not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but if we conduct experiments, they should be mostly bullet-proof.

@LeoH3L1

5 ай бұрын

Certainly pressure has an effect, it is the main reason why Venus is so hot, not the CO2 content. Google "atmospheric auto-compression", basically at anything over about 1/10th of the earth's surface gravity, the atmosphere is heavy enough to heat itself up just by compression.

The IR source you used is not the same as the earth. You can replace it by a boiling water, or Leslie cube ad John Tyndal did, so that the maximum IR radiation is around 10 micron. Why? Because the 15 micron of CO2 is relevant to climate, rather than those at 2.7 and 4.3 microns.

Perhaps you should have had an empty bag as a control, then see how the other bags responded. Perhaps also having several layers of bags (2 or 3 thick) could have accentuated the effect from CO2/Air. You do great work. Thanks for the vid.

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 ?

@nigelliam153

Жыл бұрын

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.

@hartunstart

Жыл бұрын

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.

@davidlawrenson2103

Жыл бұрын

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?

@TheCountess666

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@TheCountess666

Жыл бұрын

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.

Thank you for great video!

You created with your method an CO2 Sensor as you correctly said and it says nothing whether CO2 temperature inside the bag will increase or decrease. The temperature inside the CO2 bag will depend on the radiation sinks and sources the bag sees in its ambient. This gas is IR active, meaning it does not just absorb but also radiate. In case of CO2 in the troposphere the radiation of an average control volume towards cold space clearly excids the IR energy absorbed from earth surface! Therefore IR active gases in troposphere have a cooling effect!

You should have placed an empty bag in between, just to see what effect the bag itself had on this experiment.

@bullymaguire3867

Жыл бұрын

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.

"Lets fill it with CO2"

The release of cold co2 in the bag , condens the moisture in the surrounding air creating water vapor mixture in the bag , you can see the water vapor in the bag causing it to have a cloudy appearance and block more light. .

@grindupBaker

2 ай бұрын

No you cAN'T

concise and clear explanation!

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.

@spud69g

Жыл бұрын

His acting career really boosted him up there.

@user-bg2oi4bz3p

Жыл бұрын

He also failed as a stand-up comedian. Now he's just an NWO puppet.

@zeked4200

Жыл бұрын

Then you watched 6 minutes of his Netflix show and wanted to re-enact the "Brooks was Here" scene from Shawshank...

but what if CO2 just scattering IR Light, not absorbing?

@vapormissile

Жыл бұрын

Right. Neat experiment, but not relevant to the problem of human pollution.

@Piccolo_Sun

Жыл бұрын

very valid

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

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.

@JustinL614

Жыл бұрын

@@landsgevaer It does escape just not at a high enough rate. The earth is not a closed system.

@Piccolo_Sun

Жыл бұрын

@@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 do we know the bag of co2 isn't scattering some of the IR light away from the sensor versus absorbing some of it?

@brandonstone2754

Жыл бұрын

Also put a bag of water vapor behind each bag and see what you get

how do you know the co2 in the bag isn't reflecting, or refracting the light? The glass isn't absorbing IR light.

@thekaxmax

Жыл бұрын

Yes it is, he stated that.

I just read an article from Columbia climate school in which it states that CO2 makes up just 0.04% of our atmosphere. It also states that CO2 levels have doubled since the inception of the industrial revolution. It also states that water vapor makes up to 4% of our atmosphere and is a much more voracious greenhouse gas than CO2 ever could be. If this is true, why does CO2 get all the attention? Also, how about an experiment showing the greenhouse affect of 0.04 % CO2 vs 0.02% CO2 ie real life, not 0.04 % CO2 vs maybe 90+% C02 as done in this experiment.

@TheRainHarvester

Жыл бұрын

I read we are currently at .0421%. So since industrial revolution we have only increased 21 parts per MILLION. Add that much more co2 to the air bag and repeat experiment.

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@@TheRainHarvester What? The industrial Revolution has much less than 400 ppm. The increase is much larger than 21 ppm

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@Ron Quiring The atmosphere is not even close to 4% water vapor. It's probably 1% or less. And CO2 leads to some warning which increases water vapor, and that causes more warning too.

@TheRainHarvester

Жыл бұрын

@@DANGJOS 4000ppm during Cambrian to 180ppm pre industrial. It's all over the place. I didn't realize it was at 4000ppm historically.

@sinisterthoughts2896

Жыл бұрын

Um... more is more? Contributing to a problem is just that? It's not a race, where only first place matters, it's additive. It's like only worrying about twenty five pound plates on a barbell, and discounting the 5 pound weights someone keeps adding. The atmosphere is a delicate balance and getting it a little off has dire consequences and can't just be fixed in a jiffy. Im no eco warrior, but the whole thing about formulas is that all the integers are important.

Take that Bill Nay

What your experiment told me is not to bag up the exhaust as it comes out of my car. Thank you for that.

Do a follow up video where you compare air to CO2 to something like a super greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride

In Kelvin the bags blocked a massive amount of the IR light compared to a very high concentration of co2. Bill Nyes experiment would be interesting if the light were inside the system but even then equalize temperature quickly. Two solids can have different temperatures and touch but two gasses will mix. Also our atmosphere will affect how much ir light comes in. So Im curious why we haven’t seen a better model yet when it seems easy to replicate to a decent extent.

@damianpos8832

Жыл бұрын

Becouse men made "climate change " is multibillion fruad build on grain of truth.

You should have let the co2 in the bag warm up to room temperature to make sure that wasn't influencing your result.

@win132001

Жыл бұрын

blah blah

@mtaylor3771

7 ай бұрын

He did

In the atmosphere co2 volume is so great that it absorbs a high percentage of the spectra of IR that co2 absorbs. And so for every unit of volume that co2 is increased less additional ir is absorbed until no more ir is absorbed by the co2. It would be interesting to replicate that relationship on a bench top model. And compare it to methane and water vapor. The next step is to keep the left and right politics out of the experiment.

Now control the co2 ppm and try different concentrations to see if the temp increase is linear or...

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.

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

What comes back is the black body radiation, which depending on temperature is also somewhere in the IR.

@Red.Rabbit.Resistance

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean CO2 reflects IR. How would it do that?

@DANGJOS

Жыл бұрын

@@Red.Rabbit.Resistance What do you mean by the carbon lowering the temperature?

@landsgevaer

Жыл бұрын

@@Red.Rabbit.Resistance Where did you get the isea that a gas can *reflect* light?

I didn't enjoy it, i loved it. That was great debunking and explaining! Thank you! Your channel keeps delivering.

@Ranstone

Жыл бұрын

You can tell it's more reliable, because it didn't support one political side or another.

@jonabub

Жыл бұрын

@@Ranstone I don't understand why you'd think that actual facts could be favouring one or the other political side? I'm curious to understand your thought here, if you'd be so kind to elaborate.

@Joefrogigolo

Жыл бұрын

@@Ranstone don't do it, it's a trap.

I'm glad people are taking this serious, I've worked for years in reducing my use of fossil fuels as much as possible, even moving into an area that uses mainly hydro electric and nuclear methods of generating electricity. For the rest, I've bought a piece of property that I have actively reforested since 2003 and what trees have died/blown down I've used as cooking fuel and fertilizer... it's not perfect, but it's a move in the right direction I think. I know, some hate nuclear power, but it's better than fossil fuel in my opinion.

Since you mention the article by Wagoner at 3:05, let me point you that an answer to this article: Berto et al (2014) ''Climate change in a shoebox': A critical review' which demonstrates that - given the right measurement equipment - one *can* meaure the effect in a box.

Bill Nye and NDT... birds of a feather.

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.

@zeked4200

Жыл бұрын

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

Maybe try saran wrap on each end of a long pipe filled with the gas to get an idea of the effect of passing through more distance. I hear water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. It would be cool to test that out.

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.

"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..."

I, a physicist: That' s not how... Action Lab: There's a lot wrong with this setup. I: I knew I could trust you!

@eatshitlarrypage.3319

Жыл бұрын

I was sitting there staring at the glass jars thinking "...But glass blocks infrared light. Of course there's no difference."

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?

Interesting how other parameters are discarded when the result fits the desired outcome.