@bloodscale3 Yeah, thats true. But I meant that the shiny clouds in the atmosphere reflect (not absorb) all or alt least a lot of the (at least visual) light (not only UV) - thats why they look white from space and black or dark grey from earth. Actually I have no idea how big this effect may be but thats the way I was told about what clouds do^^
@Jebus495 H2O is a greenhouse gas, alls this means is that it absorbs heat from the sun and keeps it, thus heating up the earth, CO2 does this and Methane is even worse than these two (I think)
Here's a great trick for parties: drop a piece of solid CO2 into a glass with water and dish detergent.
The white fumes get trapped in the bubbles, and then you can grab the bubbles in you hand and throw them at people, they break on contact, releasing the fumes.
A good CO2 scrubbing operation would be to plant trees, then cut them down before they get too old and then plant new ones in their place, as young trees grow faster and absorb CO2 faster than old ones. I suggest taking up a hobby that requires an abundant use of paper, which will support exactly such an operation.
There are some drawbacks to the green energy and processes idea.
E.g. taken to it's extreme, over 50% of the power in the grid would immediately disappear, vastly slowing down the progress to other technologies, which require power to research and produce. An example being the endless turbine and solar panel grants that take money from fusion.
We had to put up with and pass through the filthy industrial revolution, and it's smog, to get to a cleaner position.
The volcanoes happen once in 2000 years (for example) and you drive your five seater alone to the shopping mall three times per day. There always have been volcanoes on the Earth but the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has never been that high for so long.
Data about CO2 in the air from Mauna Loa Solar Observatory: year 2000-350 ppm; 2020-400; 2040-460; 2060-530; 2080-610; 2100-700 - this is the best case scenario.
The concentration of CO2 is driving ... on exponent.
@1997xander According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
I know that's how scientists see global warming and logically that's right, but the reason the argument is there is because the multitrillion dollar companies specializing in acquiring and selling of fossil fuels would have their companies likely destroyed if their 'product' was no longer widely consumed. Same deal with antiaging creams, antioxidants are proven not to slow aging but admitting that would destroy the industry so they argue it despite knowing the truth to protect their businesses.
What determines how much elemental carbon or MgO is produced by the demonstration? If you left it to react longer or added more Mg would you have more C or MgO? By the way this was a really cool video!
Though I agree with the necessity to steadily eliminate the use of fossil fuels, as they are limited and the political ramifications of acquiring them have been detrimental, I have read many studies that say an increase in atmospheric CO2 is generally beneficial to plant growth. This is similar to how increased O2 levels during the Carboniferous Period helped arthropods to grow very large.
@adiostraitorobama Have also read about this. I have also read about a hypothesis that there is a large amount of methane gas that has solidified in the deep ocean due to the very cold and high pressures. If an deep ocean earth quake or volcano erupts it could turn this large amount of locked up methane hydrate and turn it back into a gas. I could be wrong, but from my understanding. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas then CO2. Course this hypothesis could be bunk. Just something I have read
im quite surprised the co2 sublimed that fast to "explode". i thought it would go at the same rate and cause those small jars to hover on the counter. anyone can teach me of the sharp increase in reaction rate...... or is there some glue at the lid of the jar?
lets all abandon fossil fuels and start using solar power. just that someone needs to make another better material than our current pv which. at least 50% conversion will be very very good enough i guess
@mwowner12 i learn science too but still believe in religion. we may not have the same faith but at least we believe that god exists and have certain protocols in life, peace : )
@mwowner12 The fact we can see stars is proof that the earth is millions of years old. and don't give that stupid excuse "GOD PUT IT THERE TO TEST OUR FAITH HURR DURR"
you believe that a Jewish wizard pointed his finger at earth and 2 people showed up, they mated and inbred to get Chinese, Arabic, African, European and hundreds more combinations of Humans. then you believe that 2 of all the animals on earth swam to the middle east over a day or two because a 200 year old midget build a ship big enough to house every animal. it makes no sense. but you believe it... why? because you where brainwashed as a child.
@toddissofullysick I said nothing about teens or scene kids. I can't decide if you're trolling or just stupid. Then again, there isn't that much difference between the two.
@DistendedPerinium i quote "LOOL a 15 year old has a comment in this subject? Go back and cut urself some cloths to wear for ur future fashion career." i think you must be stupid.
A small correction to the dense white cloud you see above the water which is infact: tiny water crystals cooled down from the surrounding air. Carbon dioxide is and will always be colorless and invisible in it's gaseous form.
I hardly think the governments, scientists, meterologists, researchers and enviromentalists from around the world are all in league to undermine the public...
...to do what? Clean up the air? OH NOEZ! MAi C4NCER IZ GON3.
Just make a bunch of large air processing plants to burn magnesium in concentrated CO2, producing carbon and MgO. Recycle MgO by conversion to MgCl with HCl and use electrolysis to convert to magnesium metal. Bury the carbon. Power process with renewable energy. More permanent than any of the carbonate or seawater sequestering schemes.
@DrD0000M I did a quick calculation and it turns out you would have to invest around 1500 kJ - 1600 kJ at the MINIMUM to make 2 mol (recycled, following your method) of Mg metal (and far more if you extract it from nature, over 2000 kJ). Since the reaction is 2 Mg + CO2 -> 2MgO + C, you can process only 1 mol of CO2 this way. If we look at the combustion of octane, C8H8+6O2->8CO2+4H2O you produce 8 mol of CO2 and get 5070 kJ out per mol. But you would need 12000 kJ to get rid of the CO2!
@nickcorn93 Well obviously using a CO2 releasing energy source to power this CO2 converting process would be pointless. But if enough renewable or nuclear power was available then the overall atmospheric concentration of CO2 could be reduced thereby reducing any related warming effect. Theoretically, you could still use liquid fossil fuels for mobile power (for cars and planes) and use stationary CO2 cleaning plants to make them carbon neutral. Liquid fuel is simplest /densestfuel for cars.
@DrD0000M This would only be practical after the world has been able to sustain itself on non CO2 releasing energy. Excess energy production could then be used to "repair" the atmosphere so that high CO2 levels are not PERMANENT. It has the advantage that unlike other CO2 sequestering proposals, there is no possible sudden re-release of CO2 or ocean acidification. It's gone for good.
@DrD0000M I've actually thought of the very same thing, but the problem is that the amount of energy needed to electrolyse the magnesium chloride is equal to the amount of energy gained by burning the magnesium.
Energy can't be created or destroyed, except when converting it to mass or vice versa.
@DrD0000M so you bury the carbon making land fills of unusable carbon. In turn less carbon is in the air meaning plants start to die off due to lack of CO2. This leads to the human race dying out due to lack of plants removing oxegen from carbon. Plants when they dye also leave the carbon they take from the air and make it useful for other living things on the planet.
@GrandDesignsSims Ballance humans and plants and develope hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels and you have a planet that will live for as long as the sun is still there or untill the universe loses all possable energy convertion depending on how smart the human race is in the future.
@DrD0000M whats the point when people are burning elemental carbon (coal) at a significant rate. The point of sequestration is to convert or hide the carbon as its being produced at an economical price. The way I see it Algae could be our CO2 scrubbers. Hopefully that turns out to be viable.
@DrD0000M there are trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, besides- the electricity to electrolyze the MgCl will come from burning coal. MgO can be soaked in water to convert to MgOH which has a lower melting point. but, this plan is fundamentally a failure because there is so much CO2 already in the atmosphere. Even if all this worked, you cant get a Nobel Prize for simply proposing an idea- you have to put it into motion
Yes, I believe the sea is like a huge soda can with a lot of CO2 dissolved in it, so as the temperature would rise slowly with the gas we produce, the seas release that gas multiplying the effects and I don't really know how much.
It's maybe like a certain activation energy for a destructive enviormental process, that we may be reaching.
About the dry ice in the bottle, was it sealed or just in contact with the surface of the table? because then how did the pressure raised without lifting it?
just a bit confused... when the magnesium started reacting to form the oxide, why did it nick oxygen atoms from the carbon dioxide? why did it just not react?
@Adrenalinism It's been a while since I did chemistry, but if I remember rightly, the initial reacton between the magnesium and oxygen in the air has enough energy to break the carbon-oxygen double bonds, causing the bond to break, forming carbon and gaseous oxygen, which build up (in the case of carbon), or react with the burning magnesium (in the case of oxygen). This then produces more energy to break more bonds, further fuelling the oxidisation.
also, sorry, would there be any chance that the "evaporating, melting?" dry ice would have any chemical reactions with the thermal material? would it give off any toxins? i've seen a sewn together mylar/fabric sheet i'm going to cut up and use. maybe ill punch one or two holes in the thermal fabric ..
i have a question.. if you had a block of dry ice, a decently insulated beverage cooler, and a piece of camping thermal material.. if you loosely wrapped the dry ice block in the thermal material and placed that inside the cooler then closed the lid.. granted you had a tiny hole drilled into the bottom of the cooler, granted the lid of the cooler wasn't locked shut for precaution, roughly how long would that drill hole slowly shoot out co2 gas?
Both sides on the GW issue have data issue, as well as data skewing to support their ideas/beliefs
But lets plant this little thought. If the people trying to PROVE there is in fact GW, were to find data to disprove or admit that data collected had been skewed, do you think they would still be getting the grant money to study it? It has become an industry in its own right. That funding engine is part of the issue.
Man that reaction of magnesium inside the dry ice is awesome. I would not have expected it to "steal" the oxygen from the CO2 to form elemental carbon.
Reminds me of the reaction between Nitric acid and copper in High school. Wasn't expecting anything to happen, but boy was I wrong.
I like the videos that you produce but I could do without the 'chat' on global warming and I hope Martin was looking at someone when he kept looking up and to the left.
I like this scientist; he states what he thinks is the right answer [as to whether or not global warming exists], and how likely he thinks it is that that's the case, then he states what it will mean if he's wrong. I respect a scientist who can admit the possibility that he's (or she's) wrong.
The nothing to lose mentality is flawed considering what has already happened, and what is going to happen (cap and trade etc) due to mans effort to stop co2 emissions.
Already millions are starving due to areas once being used to grow food, have been replaced to grow bio-fuel, and the plans to reduce co2 emissions world wide will halt the economy, stop the progress of 3rd world countries and cause millions to lose their jobs and starve.
there hasn't been a reduction in world-wide food production due to either biofuel production or plans to reduce CO2 emissions. In some places such as Australia there have been crop failures and huge fires caused by global warming.
Lulz. There has been a reduction in world wide food production due to biofuel production, and there hasn't been any global warming the past 10 years. The globe has actually cooled down.
I don't think that these guys know what they're talking about. When he drops CO2 pellets into the beaker of water, he says that it is "evaporating to form this frothy white gas."
Dry ice does not evaporate, it sublimates, and the "frothy white gas" is actually water vapor rapidly condensing out of the atmosphere upon hitting the sudden cold (just as your breath condenses on a cold day). As a gas, CO2 is invisible, not "frothy white."
So if they don't know this, what else are they wrong about?
ybravura, I think you're paying too much attention to a mistake. Of course they know it sublimates, but it's easy to mix up sublimation and evaporation when you're talking on camera. Do you find some satisfaction in correcting PhD's on mundane matters? If so, find something better to do with your time.
Too bad CO2 is a lagging indicator and it is also a well known fact the earth has had nearly 10 times the CO2 while supporting extremely large lifeforms. Also a 90% chance based on corrupt science? The head of East Anglia already admitted at a minimum there is NO significant global warming over the last 14 years and the Eath has been cooling since 2002.
hmm yet CO2 is far more dense than the other elements in the air, so it has been proven that there isn't no where near as much CO2 as they say there is poluting out atmosphere.
@tubaboy71 this is certainly true. at one time the Earth supported very large lifeforms in extremely hot and atmospherically dense conditions with very high CO2 levels.
Unfortunately human beings could not survive in such circumstances.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"We won't have lost anything..."
Scientists may not have lost anything, they will still for the most part live comfortable, middle to upper-middle class lives. What about the Africans? Or the Chinese or Indians that would like to use available fossil fuels to become industrialized? Who would like to have electricity for their hospitals and villages and to build a national infrastructure? They will not have lost anything if it turns out all to be bad science and bad gov't policy? Rubbish.
I thought I edited out the part where The Professor said we should turn off all the electricity in hospitals BEFORE we had some alternative sources in place.... Silly me! ;)
Anyways, thanks for contributing... Hopefully you will take some consolation from the fact the School of Chemistry in Nottingham has really close links with Africa and developing their chemical processes. We've even done videos about it.
The problem is saying carbon dioxide = global warming is wonderfully simple....but the earth is a complex system unlike a lab experiment.Water vapour is a "green house" gas are we going to tax that?.....how about this formula politics+truth bending+funding=more tax.
@curtisekstrom so we STILL haven't lost anything because the comfortable first-worlders can switch over to green non-fossil energies, and the developing-worlders suddenly gain access to the vast quantities of fossil fuels that the first world gulps up every day to help them get on their feet. Everybody wins!
Oh, and for the record, the Chinese are already VERY industrialised, as is India.
@curtisekstrom thats where the carbon price comes in. We pay to emmit the stuff, that money goes to places that dont emit enough, they than use that money to develop green industries.
very intresting video keep em comeing :) shame anything with CO2 in the title attracts pseudo science nonsence. comments driven by fear, paranoia and far right denial based politics.
Generous grants for AGW research are given by governments. I don't trust the government, and I don't trust scientists (like at the criminal CRU) who refuse to allow outside scrutiny of their work.
The global warming scare is all about a political agenda -- and we have plenty to lose.
I think we'd be better of working out how to cope and adapt to the possibility of those things, than wasting our time trying to control the climate with our CO2 emissions!
@zoltan6561 Yah. The Oceans are going to rise... Someone tell Al Gore. He might want to reconsider his most recent Real Estate investment. You know, the beach-front villa? That's really inconvenient.
Not burning fossil fuels isn't necessarily good. Other methods used for energy production are more expensive.
As a result of 'green' policies we have already seen the price of some basic food stuffs rise; their supply being diminished when crops for food production were switched for other ones to produce biofuels. For some people this has already meant the difference between being able to eat, and not.
I don't think lessofyou was talking about strictly carbon dioxide. The most significant pollutant that volcanoes spew is sulfur dioxide and ash.
If you'd like me to cite that I can, but it's readily found if you're interested. Actually sulfur dioxide has a really cool (pun intended, you'll see!) effect on global temperature.
Well sulfur dioxide and ash are particulates, which if i am correct works to actually block out infra-red insolation.
Volcanic activity such as this should actually make earth cooler, rather than hotter as many skeptics claim to the contrary.
And yes i see your pun ; )
Its obvious Lessofyou, has nowhere to go with his claim other than into admission that he needs to revise his own position very carefully, and maybe question the source of his own facts.
@digitised I'm not even going to argue about this, you fag... It's useless. Global warming is the same as a religion, you can't talk a person out of it. If you're a sheep you'll always be a sheep - always believing everything the media tells you...
YOU HAVE YOUR FACTS WRONG, BECAUSE THEY'RE MADE UP.
@RomeoSOF2 Lets get one thing clear, i listen to scientists not media. The overwhelming majority of experts involved in - climatology meteorology geochemistry oceanography marine biology cosmology (that means nasa) and other related fields All agree that the earth is getting warmer and have the data to prove it. They are the experts, not me not you. The media is an inaccurate hyperactive sensationalist, not a reliable source of information on global warming. Religions have no data, GW does.
@digitised Yeah, sure. Believe NASA. Jesus fucking Christ...
I am so positive, that global warming is a scam that I will stab myself in the foot if it's real. If it turns out to be real contact me and I will post a video of me stabbing myself in the foot.
I JUST FOUND OUT THE PROF'S INSPIRATION FOR HIS HAIR.
DAT BOOK AT 3:07 ON THE SHELF O3O
aaronphuay 1 week ago
Se voce veio aqui pelo Tecmundo, da joinha!
LHSemensato 2 weeks ago 5
This man remember Zeke from inFamous
ViniTanureh 2 weeks ago
Does Neil teach?
SuperTechieJ 2 weeks ago
"Our workshop made us a cannon..." That must be the coolest shop to work in ever.
Bear5177 2 weeks ago
"... and there is light coming out of the sun."
Obvious chemist is obvious.
Ankstek013 3 weeks ago
does CO2 have a significant impact on warming relative to a more powerful greenhouse gas like water vapor? What are the relative strengths?
zombierobopirate 3 weeks ago
turn down your volume at 5:49
garrysmod102 4 weeks ago
Isn't water vapor a more potent greenhouse gas? There's also like 100 times more of that than CO2
Jebus495 2 months ago
@Jebus495 Water vapor in the athmosphere is what we call clouds ;)
They reflect the sunlight so protect earth from heating up...
I'm no scientist, but as far as I know the reflecting effect is greater than every effect it may cause to warm up earth.
JumpingNoCrime 2 months ago
@JumpingNoCrime It's actually the O3 (Ozone) in the atmosphere that stops U.V. light passing through and heating up the planet more than it does
bloodscale3 1 month ago
@bloodscale3 Yeah, thats true. But I meant that the shiny clouds in the atmosphere reflect (not absorb) all or alt least a lot of the (at least visual) light (not only UV) - thats why they look white from space and black or dark grey from earth. Actually I have no idea how big this effect may be but thats the way I was told about what clouds do^^
JumpingNoCrime 1 month ago
@bloodscale3 True, its the CO2 that is destroying the ozone
Typho0n86 1 month ago
@Typho0n86 Sorry, but you're thinking of CFC's :p Chloroflourocarbons destroy the ozone. Not CO2
Shadow194 1 month ago
@Jebus495
Increased atmospheric CO2 increases evaporation of water from the world's oceans.
So you see human influence can input in to a positive feedback loop where atmospheric water vapour is also increased.
Teghead 2 months ago in playlist Molecular Videos (supported by Aldrich Chemistry)
@Jebus495 H2O is a greenhouse gas, alls this means is that it absorbs heat from the sun and keeps it, thus heating up the earth, CO2 does this and Methane is even worse than these two (I think)
bloodscale3 1 month ago
So they make film canisters still ?
FunnyAccentGuy 2 months ago
Here's a great trick for parties: drop a piece of solid CO2 into a glass with water and dish detergent.
The white fumes get trapped in the bubbles, and then you can grab the bubbles in you hand and throw them at people, they break on contact, releasing the fumes.
aureusyarara 2 months ago
thumbnail ... pair of boobs ... wtf is wrong with me
MrMaffen 2 months ago
dry ice is very useful when it comes to painting a house
the1thatgotirwin 3 months ago
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a more potent greenhouse gas is H2O, especially when cosmic rays stimulate cloud formation by ionization.
BeefotronX 4 months ago
@BeefotronX trolling often?
mgregggphone 4 months ago
A good CO2 scrubbing operation would be to plant trees, then cut them down before they get too old and then plant new ones in their place, as young trees grow faster and absorb CO2 faster than old ones. I suggest taking up a hobby that requires an abundant use of paper, which will support exactly such an operation.
BeefotronX 4 months ago
@BeefotronX
Save the planet, build more libraries?
fritspas 3 months ago
There are some drawbacks to the green energy and processes idea.
E.g. taken to it's extreme, over 50% of the power in the grid would immediately disappear, vastly slowing down the progress to other technologies, which require power to research and produce. An example being the endless turbine and solar panel grants that take money from fusion.
We had to put up with and pass through the filthy industrial revolution, and it's smog, to get to a cleaner position.
lexichronicle2 5 months ago
For a material that is gas in room temperature, CO2 really can take some heat in solid form! Thats... Somewhat weird?
loupax 6 months ago
I am going to use the sound around 5:54 as a background noise for my new animal torture video.
zurechtweiser 6 months ago
I am getting dry ice tomorrow!
wuguschemik 6 months ago
"it does that to the kids as-well, brilliant." lol
bushiyo2 6 months ago
Plan B of cleaning the air from CO2:
Petroleum -> to be replaced with hydrogen fuel & water-fuel emulsions
Coal -> to be deleted in the equation and the steam power plants to go on carbon monoxide fuel and/or hydrogen
Natural Gas -> cleaner emissions to be developed
Cement Production and Transport -> on hydrogen
Clothes -> go on cotton, linen, silk and wool, and nothing else
Energy wasting machinery of any kind: old cars, computers, production facilities -go on recycling.
Food without chemistry.
U1T001 7 months ago
RE: The volcanoes
The volcanoes happen once in 2000 years (for example) and you drive your five seater alone to the shopping mall three times per day. There always have been volcanoes on the Earth but the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has never been that high for so long.
Data about CO2 in the air from Mauna Loa Solar Observatory: year 2000-350 ppm; 2020-400; 2040-460; 2060-530; 2080-610; 2100-700 - this is the best case scenario.
The concentration of CO2 is driving ... on exponent.
U1T001 7 months ago
50% of reactions in these films Martin never saw :D
mpandurov 7 months ago
Question? Doesn't The carbon dioxide coming from volcanoes in the in any five years contribute more than man has even been burning fossil fuels?
universalmoor 7 months ago
@universalmoor no, it's a negligible amount.
source:
ww w.sc ie nced irec t.c o m/science/article/pii/001670379290243C
1997xander 7 months ago
@1997xander It says"Sorry, the requested document is unavailable. Contact the Help Desk if the problem persists. [SD-007]" ah wassup?
universalmoor 7 months ago
@universalmoor
Have you been sure to remove all the spaces?
google sciencedirect ,search for "Global carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere by volcanoes"
The first link that pops up is the article I'm referring to.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but youtube won't let me post links.
1997xander 7 months ago
@1997xander Cool!
universalmoor 7 months ago
@1997xander According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
universalmoor 7 months ago
@universalmoor
Exactly! I'm also happy that you're not one of those guys who'll post" BUT ITS A CONSPIRACY" during an argument.
1997xander 7 months ago
@1997xander Sometimes what one would percieve as fact may be subjective but SOMETHING is better than NOTHING when fact finding. lol
universalmoor 7 months ago
@universalmoor
Remove the spaces from my link.
1997xander 7 months ago
You can't fool me at 0:53. That's a supher atom, not the sun.
disorganizedorg 7 months ago 6
pause at 7:02 BEST FACE EVARR XD
KazCrazy1 8 months ago 2
Chemists must be very good at doing pranks.
cristianfcao 8 months ago
@DrD0000M lol ok but how would you get magnesium without adding CO2 to the atmosphere? :L
shoottherunner8008 8 months ago
Great series. Cool - First part was captioned in English, please caption part two in English as well. Jim
jwillisbarrie 8 months ago
I know that's how scientists see global warming and logically that's right, but the reason the argument is there is because the multitrillion dollar companies specializing in acquiring and selling of fossil fuels would have their companies likely destroyed if their 'product' was no longer widely consumed. Same deal with antiaging creams, antioxidants are proven not to slow aging but admitting that would destroy the industry so they argue it despite knowing the truth to protect their businesses.
Versudan 8 months ago
Ever heard of CO2 Hash??!!?!? TROLOLOLOLOLOL
MrGmanFreeman 8 months ago
What determines how much elemental carbon or MgO is produced by the demonstration? If you left it to react longer or added more Mg would you have more C or MgO? By the way this was a really cool video!
sammaxbammaxjamma 9 months ago
Though I agree with the necessity to steadily eliminate the use of fossil fuels, as they are limited and the political ramifications of acquiring them have been detrimental, I have read many studies that say an increase in atmospheric CO2 is generally beneficial to plant growth. This is similar to how increased O2 levels during the Carboniferous Period helped arthropods to grow very large.
Ricalloo 9 months ago
@Ricalloo Could I get a link to those studies please?
kazuwacky 8 months ago
LOL watching that first bit made me think, "Chuck Norris cuts CO2 with a saw" =D
jq747 9 months ago
You know what it is like; people who pretend that they are not believing in global warming; just so that they can ignore the problem.
SabretoothSnowMan 10 months ago
what happens if you cross periodic videos with mythbusters? I think everyone likes booms lol.
dreasim 11 months ago
CO2 blocks almost no heat from the earth. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas .
jwrosenbury 1 year ago
@adiostraitorobama Have also read about this. I have also read about a hypothesis that there is a large amount of methane gas that has solidified in the deep ocean due to the very cold and high pressures. If an deep ocean earth quake or volcano erupts it could turn this large amount of locked up methane hydrate and turn it back into a gas. I could be wrong, but from my understanding. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas then CO2. Course this hypothesis could be bunk. Just something I have read
minraja 1 year ago
If science is unpredictable then nothing can be proven....Kinda odd thing to say being a scientist.
minraja 1 year ago
Reading these comments, I understand how little I know of science.
BearWithABanjo 1 year ago
im quite surprised the co2 sublimed that fast to "explode". i thought it would go at the same rate and cause those small jars to hover on the counter. anyone can teach me of the sharp increase in reaction rate...... or is there some glue at the lid of the jar?
de0509 1 year ago
lets all abandon fossil fuels and start using solar power. just that someone needs to make another better material than our current pv which. at least 50% conversion will be very very good enough i guess
de0509 1 year ago
@mwowner12 i learn science too but still believe in religion. we may not have the same faith but at least we believe that god exists and have certain protocols in life, peace : )
de0509 1 year ago
@mwowner12 The fact we can see stars is proof that the earth is millions of years old. and don't give that stupid excuse "GOD PUT IT THERE TO TEST OUR FAITH HURR DURR"
toddissofullysick 1 year ago
@mwowner12 you started all this.
you believe that a Jewish wizard pointed his finger at earth and 2 people showed up, they mated and inbred to get Chinese, Arabic, African, European and hundreds more combinations of Humans. then you believe that 2 of all the animals on earth swam to the middle east over a day or two because a 200 year old midget build a ship big enough to house every animal. it makes no sense. but you believe it... why? because you where brainwashed as a child.
toddissofullysick 1 year ago
@toddissofullysick Being derisively sarcastic about religion and making childish insults about people who have faith. Aren't we mature?
DistendedPerinium 1 year ago
@DistendedPerinium Making assumptions and stereotyping all Teenagers as scene kids. Aren't we mature?
toddissofullysick 1 year ago
@toddissofullysick I said nothing about teens or scene kids. I can't decide if you're trolling or just stupid. Then again, there isn't that much difference between the two.
DistendedPerinium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DistendedPerinium i quote "LOOL a 15 year old has a comment in this subject? Go back and cut urself some cloths to wear for ur future fashion career." i think you must be stupid.
toddissofullysick 1 year ago
A small correction to the dense white cloud you see above the water which is infact: tiny water crystals cooled down from the surrounding air. Carbon dioxide is and will always be colorless and invisible in it's gaseous form.
rockyman777 1 year ago
@mwowner12
LOL you're a christian who listens to shit music. you can't talk. I rather be 15 than a brainwashed idiot.
toddissofullysick 1 year ago
could you possibly get a solid block of carbon by that reaction shown?
atsf3780 1 year ago
@mwowner12 you must be an idiot...
toddissofullysick 1 year ago
@mwowner12
Scam? How on earth is it a scam?
Conspiracy theories are always deeply flawed.
I hardly think the governments, scientists, meterologists, researchers and enviromentalists from around the world are all in league to undermine the public...
...to do what? Clean up the air? OH NOEZ! MAi C4NCER IZ GON3.
?
TheRimDoctor 1 year ago
@mwowner12
You must be joking.
TheRimDoctor 1 year ago
Pause at 7:04
xcheesyxbaconx 1 year ago
Just make a bunch of large air processing plants to burn magnesium in concentrated CO2, producing carbon and MgO. Recycle MgO by conversion to MgCl with HCl and use electrolysis to convert to magnesium metal. Bury the carbon. Power process with renewable energy. More permanent than any of the carbonate or seawater sequestering schemes.
Global warming solved. I await my Nobel prize.
DrD0000M 1 year ago 86
@DrD0000M I did a quick calculation and it turns out you would have to invest around 1500 kJ - 1600 kJ at the MINIMUM to make 2 mol (recycled, following your method) of Mg metal (and far more if you extract it from nature, over 2000 kJ). Since the reaction is 2 Mg + CO2 -> 2MgO + C, you can process only 1 mol of CO2 this way. If we look at the combustion of octane, C8H8+6O2->8CO2+4H2O you produce 8 mol of CO2 and get 5070 kJ out per mol. But you would need 12000 kJ to get rid of the CO2!
nickcorn93 1 year ago
@nickcorn93 Well obviously using a CO2 releasing energy source to power this CO2 converting process would be pointless. But if enough renewable or nuclear power was available then the overall atmospheric concentration of CO2 could be reduced thereby reducing any related warming effect. Theoretically, you could still use liquid fossil fuels for mobile power (for cars and planes) and use stationary CO2 cleaning plants to make them carbon neutral. Liquid fuel is simplest /densestfuel for cars.
DrD0000M 1 year ago
@DrD0000M This would only be practical after the world has been able to sustain itself on non CO2 releasing energy. Excess energy production could then be used to "repair" the atmosphere so that high CO2 levels are not PERMANENT. It has the advantage that unlike other CO2 sequestering proposals, there is no possible sudden re-release of CO2 or ocean acidification. It's gone for good.
DrD0000M 1 year ago
@DrD0000M you are just so modest. Has it occurred to you how much electricity it takes to do electrolysis and get a pure metal?
ductape95 1 year ago
@DrD0000M You have the same problem as the other concepts
Concentrating CO2 from air is not that easy
We actually produced a bacteria which converts CO2 to chains (like gasolin) which can be used as fuel
that way we could indeed keep our current cars etc
If you find a good way to extract CO2 from air you get the Nobel prize :x
RazielKain 1 year ago
@DrD0000M I've actually thought of the very same thing, but the problem is that the amount of energy needed to electrolyse the magnesium chloride is equal to the amount of energy gained by burning the magnesium.
Energy can't be created or destroyed, except when converting it to mass or vice versa.
sven3728 11 months ago
@DrD0000M
Probable, but not practical. Electrolysis is a very energy intensive process, as is the manufacture of hydrochloric acid.
For the amount of carbon you save from going into the air, maybe 20 times that would be burned at a power plant somewhere.
japanesepoptart 11 months ago
@DrD0000M so you bury the carbon making land fills of unusable carbon. In turn less carbon is in the air meaning plants start to die off due to lack of CO2. This leads to the human race dying out due to lack of plants removing oxegen from carbon. Plants when they dye also leave the carbon they take from the air and make it useful for other living things on the planet.
GrandDesignsSims 10 months ago
@GrandDesignsSims Ballance humans and plants and develope hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels and you have a planet that will live for as long as the sun is still there or untill the universe loses all possable energy convertion depending on how smart the human race is in the future.
GrandDesignsSims 10 months ago
@DrD0000M find enough magnesium.... its very abundandt, but you are pushing the limits
limefrog77 7 months ago
Sounds good, because I don't like any sequestering scheme that buries two atoms of oxygen along with every atom of carbon.
anonysquirrel 5 months ago
@DrD0000M
Many processes
Expensive
-> won't happen :P
1992Tiberius 5 months ago
@DrD0000M whats the point when people are burning elemental carbon (coal) at a significant rate. The point of sequestration is to convert or hide the carbon as its being produced at an economical price. The way I see it Algae could be our CO2 scrubbers. Hopefully that turns out to be viable.
fosarvian 5 months ago
@DrD0000M but, how is the magnesium extracted then? Reduction with silicon or electrolysis?
HoneyRoastedTurkey 5 months ago
@DrD0000M there are trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, besides- the electricity to electrolyze the MgCl will come from burning coal. MgO can be soaked in water to convert to MgOH which has a lower melting point. but, this plan is fundamentally a failure because there is so much CO2 already in the atmosphere. Even if all this worked, you cant get a Nobel Prize for simply proposing an idea- you have to put it into motion
msduckfuck 2 months ago
Yes, I believe the sea is like a huge soda can with a lot of CO2 dissolved in it, so as the temperature would rise slowly with the gas we produce, the seas release that gas multiplying the effects and I don't really know how much.
It's maybe like a certain activation energy for a destructive enviormental process, that we may be reaching.
About the dry ice in the bottle, was it sealed or just in contact with the surface of the table? because then how did the pressure raised without lifting it?
0Sebek0 1 year ago
awesome, we did this on the last day of school, on a slightly smaller scale.
brainiac777 1 year ago
Should weld on some big metal fins for a heat sink to the base of that CO2 cannon :)
Ormaaj 1 year ago
just a bit confused... when the magnesium started reacting to form the oxide, why did it nick oxygen atoms from the carbon dioxide? why did it just not react?
Adrenalinism 1 year ago
@Adrenalinism It's been a while since I did chemistry, but if I remember rightly, the initial reacton between the magnesium and oxygen in the air has enough energy to break the carbon-oxygen double bonds, causing the bond to break, forming carbon and gaseous oxygen, which build up (in the case of carbon), or react with the burning magnesium (in the case of oxygen). This then produces more energy to break more bonds, further fuelling the oxidisation.
Nubnos 1 year ago
also, sorry, would there be any chance that the "evaporating, melting?" dry ice would have any chemical reactions with the thermal material? would it give off any toxins? i've seen a sewn together mylar/fabric sheet i'm going to cut up and use. maybe ill punch one or two holes in the thermal fabric ..
ShinyStuffingMix 1 year ago
i have a question.. if you had a block of dry ice, a decently insulated beverage cooler, and a piece of camping thermal material.. if you loosely wrapped the dry ice block in the thermal material and placed that inside the cooler then closed the lid.. granted you had a tiny hole drilled into the bottom of the cooler, granted the lid of the cooler wasn't locked shut for precaution, roughly how long would that drill hole slowly shoot out co2 gas?
ShinyStuffingMix 1 year ago
ummm to put it simply Al Gore switched the charts
assassinXXnissassa 1 year ago
Both sides on the GW issue have data issue, as well as data skewing to support their ideas/beliefs
But lets plant this little thought. If the people trying to PROVE there is in fact GW, were to find data to disprove or admit that data collected had been skewed, do you think they would still be getting the grant money to study it? It has become an industry in its own right. That funding engine is part of the issue.
GDAboR 1 year ago
in my opinion this would be a really interesting field of science to get into.
BiDGameplays 1 year ago
A fun and fairly safe demo to do with dry ice is to put some in a latex glove and tie it.
It makes a loud bang.
mewrox99 1 year ago
These Video's are So Informative, Keep up the Good Work
markcumbriauk 1 year ago
SOP WARMINGGGGGGG
moersch96 1 year ago
cool effects...it looks like Halloween box
Cickarn 1 year ago
Cool. I have to ask if our workshop will build me a cannon too.
LiiMuRi 1 year ago
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!! SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!! SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!! SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!!
Scrap5000 1 year ago
the professor should be put up for the nobel prize
jamesdonnellan010101 1 year ago
Man that reaction of magnesium inside the dry ice is awesome. I would not have expected it to "steal" the oxygen from the CO2 to form elemental carbon.
Reminds me of the reaction between Nitric acid and copper in High school. Wasn't expecting anything to happen, but boy was I wrong.
malayrojak 1 year ago
"the unpredictability of science" *POP*
vr00m123 1 year ago
I like the videos that you produce but I could do without the 'chat' on global warming and I hope Martin was looking at someone when he kept looking up and to the left.
bluebalute 1 year ago
Bullseye xD
Chmielok 1 year ago
I like this scientist; he states what he thinks is the right answer [as to whether or not global warming exists], and how likely he thinks it is that that's the case, then he states what it will mean if he's wrong. I respect a scientist who can admit the possibility that he's (or she's) wrong.
SqOcelot 1 year ago 2
British-Asian? O_o Cool..:D
hasnoku 1 year ago
That dry ice chamber is awesome!
SupportShotgun 1 year ago
Dri Ice at room condition does not evaporate ( liquid ->vapor), it goes into sublimation (solid -> gas)
walkandlookup 1 year ago
cutting the co2 with a saw >>>that isnt something that you hear everyday :L
1993gandy 1 year ago
i wonder if every professor of chemistry got a favorite molecule
baddmanaz 1 year ago
The nothing to lose mentality is flawed considering what has already happened, and what is going to happen (cap and trade etc) due to mans effort to stop co2 emissions.
Already millions are starving due to areas once being used to grow food, have been replaced to grow bio-fuel, and the plans to reduce co2 emissions world wide will halt the economy, stop the progress of 3rd world countries and cause millions to lose their jobs and starve.
We have everything to lose...
Danebrogen 1 year ago
@Danebrogen
You are spouting absolute crap. People starve because they have no money, not for any other reason.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969
Lulz. What do you think happens when there's a reduction in world wide food production?
The prices increases.
And the food prices has more than doubled the last few years, which is causing millions to starve, with more to come.
Danebrogen 1 year ago
@Danebrogen
there hasn't been a reduction in world-wide food production due to either biofuel production or plans to reduce CO2 emissions. In some places such as Australia there have been crop failures and huge fires caused by global warming.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969
Lulz. There has been a reduction in world wide food production due to biofuel production, and there hasn't been any global warming the past 10 years. The globe has actually cooled down.
Danebrogen 1 year ago
I don't think that these guys know what they're talking about. When he drops CO2 pellets into the beaker of water, he says that it is "evaporating to form this frothy white gas."
Dry ice does not evaporate, it sublimates, and the "frothy white gas" is actually water vapor rapidly condensing out of the atmosphere upon hitting the sudden cold (just as your breath condenses on a cold day). As a gas, CO2 is invisible, not "frothy white."
So if they don't know this, what else are they wrong about?
ybravura 1 year ago
Global warming
laharal90 1 year ago
ybravura, I think you're paying too much attention to a mistake. Of course they know it sublimates, but it's easy to mix up sublimation and evaporation when you're talking on camera. Do you find some satisfaction in correcting PhD's on mundane matters? If so, find something better to do with your time.
Spacew00t 1 year ago
@Spacew00t , if these PhDs are so brilliant, why do they get so many details wrong?
Do you likewise believe that the "frothy white" cloud in the beaker is CO2?
It's idiot goose-steppers like you who impede human progress.
ybravura 1 year ago
Too bad CO2 is a lagging indicator and it is also a well known fact the earth has had nearly 10 times the CO2 while supporting extremely large lifeforms. Also a 90% chance based on corrupt science? The head of East Anglia already admitted at a minimum there is NO significant global warming over the last 14 years and the Eath has been cooling since 2002.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
hmm yet CO2 is far more dense than the other elements in the air, so it has been proven that there isn't no where near as much CO2 as they say there is poluting out atmosphere.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 2 years ago
@tubaboy71 this is certainly true. at one time the Earth supported very large lifeforms in extremely hot and atmospherically dense conditions with very high CO2 levels.
Unfortunately human beings could not survive in such circumstances.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@Withnail1969 Oh? People don't live in constant 90+ degree heat anywhere?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
@tubaboy71
what is 90+? i work in centigrade.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
those "canisters" can be photography film boxes.
kargidesign 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"We won't have lost anything..."
Scientists may not have lost anything, they will still for the most part live comfortable, middle to upper-middle class lives. What about the Africans? Or the Chinese or Indians that would like to use available fossil fuels to become industrialized? Who would like to have electricity for their hospitals and villages and to build a national infrastructure? They will not have lost anything if it turns out all to be bad science and bad gov't policy? Rubbish.
curtisekstrom 2 years ago
Random Youtube hater, intellectual wannabe tries to argue with a real scientist.
Get owned more plz, you're a joke... leave.
liquids1987 2 years ago
@curtisekstrom:
I thought I edited out the part where The Professor said we should turn off all the electricity in hospitals BEFORE we had some alternative sources in place.... Silly me! ;)
Anyways, thanks for contributing... Hopefully you will take some consolation from the fact the School of Chemistry in Nottingham has really close links with Africa and developing their chemical processes. We've even done videos about it.
periodicvideos 2 years ago 25
The problem is saying carbon dioxide = global warming is wonderfully simple....but the earth is a complex system unlike a lab experiment.Water vapour is a "green house" gas are we going to tax that?.....how about this formula politics+truth bending+funding=more tax.
gordonbrownsfeet 2 years ago
fuck youu¡¡ : )
xATxIIIPaToIII 2 years ago
hey wait!!!!! I AM INDIAN!!!
ultrachemist13 2 years ago
@curtisekstrom
how can the science be bad? CO2 causes global warming, and burning fossil fuels causes CO2 levels to increase. these facts are proven.
Withnail1969 1 year ago
@curtisekstrom so we STILL haven't lost anything because the comfortable first-worlders can switch over to green non-fossil energies, and the developing-worlders suddenly gain access to the vast quantities of fossil fuels that the first world gulps up every day to help them get on their feet. Everybody wins!
Oh, and for the record, the Chinese are already VERY industrialised, as is India.
Angaraman 1 year ago 2
@curtisekstrom I agree
iSynOSX 1 year ago
@curtisekstrom thats where the carbon price comes in. We pay to emmit the stuff, that money goes to places that dont emit enough, they than use that money to develop green industries.
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago
So do Magnesium(s) and Carbon Dioxide(s) have a single-replacement reaction?
SabataZX101 2 years ago
@SabataZX101 2Mg + CO2 -> 2MgO + C
aopdjasldksa 1 year ago
Is it possible to extract carbon from CO2, so it would produce O2?
mantas1111000 2 years ago
Probably, but there would also be less O2.
sypher113 2 years ago
I like dropping CO2 in water during labs. It's a good way of annoying your lab partner
otleybey 2 years ago
very intresting video keep em comeing :) shame anything with CO2 in the title attracts pseudo science nonsence. comments driven by fear, paranoia and far right denial based politics.
neoivy 2 years ago
Generous grants for AGW research are given by governments. I don't trust the government, and I don't trust scientists (like at the criminal CRU) who refuse to allow outside scrutiny of their work.
The global warming scare is all about a political agenda -- and we have plenty to lose.
The earth can look after itself.
JB000001 2 years ago
@JB000001
Yes the Earth can "look after itself" by destroying coastal cities by rising sea level,spreading desert lands,spreading deadly tropical diseases ETC
GEORGE CARLIN "The Planet is Fine.The People are Fucked"
zoltan6561 2 years ago 20
I think we'd be better of working out how to cope and adapt to the possibility of those things, than wasting our time trying to control the climate with our CO2 emissions!
JB000001 2 years ago 2
@zoltan6561 Yah. The Oceans are going to rise... Someone tell Al Gore. He might want to reconsider his most recent Real Estate investment. You know, the beach-front villa? That's really inconvenient.
jdavies04 1 year ago
Not burning fossil fuels isn't necessarily good. Other methods used for energy production are more expensive.
As a result of 'green' policies we have already seen the price of some basic food stuffs rise; their supply being diminished when crops for food production were switched for other ones to produce biofuels. For some people this has already meant the difference between being able to eat, and not.
JB000001 2 years ago
Where did the "98% chance that they are right" (and we are facing disaster) figure come from?
JB000001 2 years ago
he said 90%.
*shrug*
purklefluff 2 years ago 2
@JB000001 Thank you for saying that. that was really annoying me.
512Airsoft 2 years ago
does solid CO2 float on liquid CO2?
multaflor 2 years ago 3
nope
liquidefeline 2 years ago
Just think how many coal burning plants and SUV's Venus must have had to get all that CO2.
ARCHERDAVE1 2 years ago 3
volcanos are the biggest poluters
lessofyou 2 years ago
Humans produce about 130 times the CO2 of volcanoes.
I simply have no idea how you can get your facts so incorrect, unless of course you do not ever check your facts.
Volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 year (Gerlach, 1991).
Humans attribute 27 billion tonnes per year ( Marland, et al., 2006)
Any questions?
digitised 2 years ago 8
@digitised:
I don't think lessofyou was talking about strictly carbon dioxide. The most significant pollutant that volcanoes spew is sulfur dioxide and ash.
If you'd like me to cite that I can, but it's readily found if you're interested. Actually sulfur dioxide has a really cool (pun intended, you'll see!) effect on global temperature.
mistermoo564 2 years ago
Well sulfur dioxide and ash are particulates, which if i am correct works to actually block out infra-red insolation.
Volcanic activity such as this should actually make earth cooler, rather than hotter as many skeptics claim to the contrary.
And yes i see your pun ; )
Its obvious Lessofyou, has nowhere to go with his claim other than into admission that he needs to revise his own position very carefully, and maybe question the source of his own facts.
digitised 2 years ago
@digitised I'm not even going to argue about this, you fag... It's useless. Global warming is the same as a religion, you can't talk a person out of it. If you're a sheep you'll always be a sheep - always believing everything the media tells you...
YOU HAVE YOUR FACTS WRONG, BECAUSE THEY'RE MADE UP.
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
digitised 1 year ago
@digitised Yeah, sure. Believe NASA. Jesus fucking Christ...
I am so positive, that global warming is a scam that I will stab myself in the foot if it's real. If it turns out to be real contact me and I will post a video of me stabbing myself in the foot.
I'm serious
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
@RomeoSOF2 What is your evidence that its a scam?
Your own personal convictions do not count.
digitised 1 year ago
@digitised I'm not even gonna begin... I'm still not going to convince you... I'm tired of pointing everything out to sheep.
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago