You should replicate the experiment that Bill Nye did with two bottles, a thermometer, two heat lamps, and CO2 being pumped into one of the two bottles.
Ink in water is not CO2 in the atmosphere. End of story. All this illustrates is what ink does in water. In terms of CO2 and greenhouse effect it is absurd.
@tunderbar04: Both ink (carbon) in water and CO2 in air do a good job of blocking the transmission of certain kinds of radiation. The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet was discovered in the 1800's and was written about in scientific journals. No body denied it then and it has been well proven since. If you would like to see a video of CO2 directly blocking heat transmission, see:
@dannyastroYT : Ink in water blocks light. We know that. And it is irrelevant to the CO2\greenhouse gas issue/paradigm. Just like comparing trace amounts of CO2 to trace amounts of cyanide or sarin is absurd, comparing CO2 in the atmosphere to ink in water is absurd. It is an illustration, a model, a way to represent an idea, but in the real world ink and water has zero to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. 14 ppm of CO2 cannot physically catastrophically alter the globes climate. Period.
@tunderbar04: You are incorrect. What you are missing is that Oxygen and Nitrogen (the main components of air) have little to do with retaining heat in the atmosphere. It is only the amount (not the percentage) of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) that determine the amount of warming. And since there is about 3,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, that does a good job of retaining heat and that is about 38% higher (so far) compared with the pre-industrial value.
@dannyastroYT "I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with homework on this subject, but I have consulted with several political blogs, and a number of my friends in the trailer park and feel completely justified in saying that the actual scientists are full of crap."
@tunderbar04, I wonder if you're the sort who also claims that evolution is false, "period."
You can recognize a non-scientific mind by the person's tendency to frame everything in absolutes and ignore all analogies. Such minds gravitate toward religious dogma because they can't handle uncertainty or degrees of risk.
@vengencefrom1979 - The CO2 has gone from ~290 parts per million to ~390 ppm, and only about 14 parts per million can be attributed to man, if we remove 14 ppm, it will make pretty much no difference. Trace amounts of increase in CO2 is still trace amounts of warming. Warming that is not even measurable in the atmosphere. And certainly nothing catastrophic in proportions.
@tunderbar04, exactly where are you getting the claim that only "14 ppm" is attributable to Man? It's actually 100+ ppm. That's the whole reason scientists are concerned in the first place, in case you didn't notice. You think they're simply lying? Wait, it's the big NWO conspiracy!
Cite a source or take your absolutist claims elsewhere, like some right-wing call-in show where nobody bothers to counter such lies.
@tunderbar04 14 ppm is down to man? What sort of fuss brained garbage do you read? The increase is almost entirely down to our excess emissions. You went wrong by taking the proportion of total CO2 emissions down to man vs nature and dividing that into the increase since 280ppm. What you ignore is the natural absorption of CO2 that is larger than the natural emissions. Therefore ALL the increase is down to us. You really aren't smart enough to comment sensibly on this subject
@aylesmerep - I understand that you alarmists have the "settled science". If it isn't 14 ppm, then what exactly is the correct figure. A cite to a scientific paper will be required. Good luck. Most of the increase was from natural sources. If you have the science you should have no trouble "debunking" the 14 ppm fihure.
@tunderbar04 I already answered your "question" before. Clearly you don't pay attention.
You wrote "Most of the increase was from natural sources". Total B.S. Natural sources are slightly smaller than natural absorbers. ALL of the difference between 398 and 280 118 ppm) is down to us. If you want to see the science then bloody read it for yourself instead of turning a blind eye to it and arrogantly demanding that others should show it to you. Just who do you think you are?
@aylesmerep, yes, tunderbar04 is committing the common wingnut error of treating natural background sources as foreground/additional sources.
It's like when Creationist Ronald Reagan claimed that trees cause "80%" of air pollution, ignoring that they've been doing that for eons, whereas Man has only recently upset the pollution balance. The meaning of "cumulative" is casually ignored to promote the agenda of Man being a harmless species.
@tunderbar04, ink and CO2 don't have to be exactly the same phenomenon for thinking people to derive a clue from the analogy. Emphasis on the word THINKING.
Here's another analogy: Sit in your vehicle on a sunny day, roll down a window and note the temperature. Then cover the open window with thin plastic screen material, comprising a tiny percentage of the interior airspace. Do you want to bet whether it will raise the interior temperature? That's a very direct analogy to the CO2 effect.
@tunderbar04, it's only "end of story" if you're too dim to grasp analogies, which is par for the course with science-deniers. You folks either try to dumb things down to a 3rd grade level, or pretend they're so complicated that the science will never be settled. Your real motive is obfuscation, not knowledge. Nobody intelligent is fooled by such ignorance.
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - Feel free to link to the science that shows how trace amounts of CO2 can alter the globes climate on a catastrophic scale. Good luck.
@tunderbar04, I could show you a thousand SCIENCE links, but you'd ignore them, just as you've ignored the analogy in this video. You've clearly decided to not be objective. Is it an economic or religious motive?
I just read a disturbing article about how Creationists (and/or oil-industry parents) are now fighting the teaching of climate science in schools. The gist of it is: "Don't tell us we came from lower animals, and don't tell us we can mess up our planet, for we are the Chosen Ones."
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - show me one that shows the physics on how trace amounts of CO2 can affect the globes climate CATASTROPHICALLY. It doesn't exist.
@tunderbar04, there's a good article from NewScientist called "Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas"
Here's an important quote from that article: "So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere."
It explains the very thing you claim to seek answers to, and only takes 5 minutes to read (though longer to comprehend). Just one of many similar explanations.
I was looking at some of the calculations for biochar removal of greenhouse gases and was shocked at how much carbon is in the air over our heads. Standard atmospheric pressure is equal to 30 inches of mercury per/square/inch but that would be several feet of liquid nitrogen and oxygen. Even at 280 ppm the carbon contained in the atmosphere is some several millimeters graphite but I don't know how much. Could somebody with the proper reference materials do the calcs please.
Water vapor is a heat trapping gas but it is short-lived (varies over a day) and is "controlled" by the other GHG's. CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years!
Yes, there are other green house gases such as methane and NOX, but CO2 is the dominant GHG in that it driving most of the excess warming. As the permafrost melts, methane may take on a bigger role. It's about 70 times more powerful in trapping heat than CO2, but it degrades to CO2 over about a decade. Therefore, over a century, methane is about 20 times more powerful than CO2.
This is deceptive. There are a lot of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat; CO2 is one of many.
If he were to add all of the other greenhouse gases in their parts per million in black ink and then add the black ink representing CO2, it would be a clearer analogy.
Irony alert: Water, in its vapor form, is a greenhouse gas.
@tunderbar04 You don't know what you are talking about. Brain dead denialists are constantly claiming that CO2 is a trace gas and therefore cannot affect anything. This demonstration points out that small amounts of stuff can have big effects.
All that was necessary to prove that denialists use stupid defective thinking was to show one simple example where a small amount of anything has a big effect. This does it.
@aylesmerep - "denialists", I invoke Godwins Law - you lose. But to address your silly points. My argument is not that small amounts of anything cannot have a big effect. That is your concoction, your strawman argument, your false interpretation of what I said. My point is simple, small amounts of CO2 cannot physically alter the globes climate catastrophically. If you want to refute that statement, show us the settled science that says other wise. Ink in water proves nothing.
@tunderbar04 yes, warming relseases alot of CO2 for example by degasiation of the sea etc. and led to an amplification of the warming.
this is why our CO2 output is seen as so dangerously. because at some point the warmth will cause even more CO2 to be released and will further amplify the warming.
@riethc The point of the experiment is to show that even a "trace" gas can have an impact on the energy passing through the atmosphere.
If you add ink for the other greenhouse gasses, then it's even MORE of an impact.
And the water vapor thing isn't irony, it's a serious problem. As the climate gets warmer, water will evaporate more, and the air will hold more vapor. While this means more rain, it also means more water vapor in the atmosphere, which means more warming, which means more vapor
This is frigging ridiculous. Man made co2 is a mere 12 ppm. Ink is not co2 and water is not the atmosphere. This model represents nothing more than bad propaganda. And exceedingly bad science.
1) Duh! - The infra-red properties of CO2 were demonstrated by John Tyndall in 1859!
2) If you look at the ice-cores, pre-industrial CO2 was at ~280 ppm. All current life evolved to cope with 280 ppm. The rise to +385 ppm has happened at a current rate that's a million times faster than than the coal measured was deposited. 385 ppm is higher than at least the last 800,000 years.
tinyurl com/ ycnovk7
It is most likely much faster than species can adapt.
@BlueManaos - temps have been warming since the last glaciation period. CO2 has been increasing in the last 150 years. One has no connection to the other. CO2 has never, in the history of paleoclimate LED temps, ever. And it is not doing that now.
@judomagyar - The demo is about showing what 280ppm looks like visually. It's not supposed to be an accurate depiction of CO2. However, saying that CO2 only absorbs a narrow bandwidth of light doesn't mean anything. The blackbody radiation is what's important... In this case, quite a large portion of photons fall within the range that excites CO2 molecules when emitted from surface heat.
There is little doubt from the responses in the p-r literature that Lindzen & Choi 09, is fatally flawed. Lindzen was wrong with IRIS, and the extensive work in this area from paleoclimate etc. indicates that LC09 is very wrong.
The fact you focus on one outlying study when so many studies dispute its conclusions [but generally agree with each another], indicates your selective blindness is showing.
Furthermore, uncertainty should be a reason for increased caution, not greater confidence!
@judomagyar Lindzen TRIED to show that, as he has been trying to show the same thing since the 80s. Every time he tries, he fails - his scientific papers get ripped to shreds by his peers. His idee fixe is simply wrong. Idiot denialists turn a blind eye to that because it suits their prejudices to believe him.
It is specifically because it reacts with only a narrow band of radiation (not light) that makes CO2 a potent greenhouse gas. If it reacted with a broader spectrum, it would reflect more incoming solar radiation and cool the earth. But because it is transparent to most radiation but reacts with infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, it acts like glass in a greenhouse, letting light in but stopping heat from escaping.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
CO2 is innocent!
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.
Well, then Dr. Miskolczi is wrong. Scientists can measure CO2's transmission bands in the laboratory. They also measure its effect in the atmosphere using satellites. Warm air holds more moisture than cold air and water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, so the increase in moisture content helps make it warmer. The last decade was the warmest since we began measuring temperature. You are arguing against something that is already occurring. Would you also like to debate gravity?
"The last decade was the warmest since we began measuring temperature"...
Well if you fit a least-square line on the data, the line is flat, in fact it has a slight negative slope.
60 years ago we also had a peak and now we are turning back down from this peak. A cooling period is coming and 60 years from now we will have another peak, etc...
Oh, I am not smart enough to debate gravity.
If you know what gravity is, you should debate it with Dr. Wilczek. :-)
'...Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2 - 4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values....The WELL-CONSTRAINED LOWER LIMIT of climate sensitivity.... the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify....'
To be precise, it's not the thermal expansion of water that causes the coke bottle to burst but the phase change from liquid to solid.
The volume change for thermal expansion around freezing is small - less then 0.1% per degree, but the volume change due to the change of phase is over 8%.
I like this demonstration. It gives too perspective on how the most tiniest things can affect our climate, then again that would be a good argument against catastrophic Global Warming..
But anyhow, this is a good video and I applaud to it's fine example!
Thanks Dan. This was a nice demonstration of this issue.
It would also be nice to see a demonstration about the fundamental difference between the molecular structure of something like CO2 vs. O2. Something that demonstrates specifically why it is that CO2 captures and retains the energy in a way that O2 doesn't.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I just did a calculation. World's ocean area is 3.61 x 10^14 m sq. If Greeland melts they say sea will rise 7.2m. There is 2.85 x 10^6 km cubed of ice on Greeland. That's only about 2 million km^3. Multiplying 3.61x10^14 with 7.2m, to get volume it would take to raise ocean level 7.2 m, we get 25.99x10^14 cubic meters. There isn't enough ice in the world to raise the sea one meter.
The area of the oceans is 3.4 x 10^11 m sq., not 10^14. If all the ice melts, including Greenland and Antarctica, then sea levels will rise about 280 feet (85 meters).
Do you means water contracts as it gets warmer? Because when water gets colder it expands. It's why if you freeze a Coke or a bottle of water in your freezer it bursts open.
@taylorgrey2004 It expands both when it gets colder and warmer. Water is the most dense at 4C, the further away it is on the temperature scale, the more space it fills.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The sea won't rise one inch in the face of global warming. The sea level may actually drop. Well those civilizations need destroyed because they're killing nature. They can move inland and leave their condos if the sea level rises, but it won't. 55 m.y.a. a tiny primate reached MS from Asia. It crossed the Bering land bridge. When climates were warmer these things CROSSED THE BERING BRIDGE. What does that tell you? Warming is good b/c the Earth now is too cold. Witness winter. Winter = death.
The Bering Straight was exposed during the last ice age, about 12 to 15 thousand years ago, when it was much colder and sea levels were much lower because there was much more ice on land in the form of huge glaciers (New York had a mile of ice above it).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What about one million years ago? Let's be fair and say 50 million years ago - when the globe had warmed up significantly after the disaster that killed off the dinosaurs. CO2 was much higher then than it is today. 350 ppm is only dangerous to us because we think that's where it's supposed to be. Still, we must address pollution - harmful pollution. CO2 is a natural gas that will be used if forests unfreeze on Greenland an Antarctica. Personally, I think global warming is good.
Have you any idea of how many human beings live near the sea, and how many trillions of dollars humans have spent building civilization on coast lines and rivers? Have you considered the consequences to civilization of a sea level rise of 70 meters, where it was last time the planet was ice-free? Are you prepared to welcome refugees fleeing the rising tides, famine and disease which will ensue? Warming is neither "good" nor "bad" as far as the planet is concerned. It's indifferent to humans.
It was warmer about 55 million years ago, which is called the PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum, which was a mass extinction event. I don't think having another mass extinction event is a good thing, though we are certainly headed for one.
@taylorgrey2004 The Sun was fainter back then so the greater CO2 did not lead to overheating but it did lead to most of the planet being good for life. If we had that level of CO2 now with our brighter Sun, we would be frying
The analogy of ink to CO2 isn't perfect, but this video does a great job of visualizing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its effects on light penetration. REally good for non-science majors especially.
@bethcf4p: And really good for misrepresenting the reality that 14 parts per million of man made CO2 cannot possibly catastrophically alter the globes climate. The physics is not there.
You should replicate the experiment that Bill Nye did with two bottles, a thermometer, two heat lamps, and CO2 being pumped into one of the two bottles.
veryhairyfishboy 2 weeks ago
If only CO2 could be linked to breast cancer....!
veryhairyfishboy 2 weeks ago
How about demonstrating that we have 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere that we have CO2. So CO2 is negligible compared to H2O.
judomagyar 1 month ago
ah a very good demonstration :)
traceink :D
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@dannyastroYT, good demo. The argument that things in small quantities must be harmless is deliberately small-minded.
Another good example is that you can die from just 50 ppm of Phosgene gas. The list of analogies could go on and on.
You might want to re-title the video to get more hits. It was unclear what it was about until I watched it.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
Ink in water is not CO2 in the atmosphere. End of story. All this illustrates is what ink does in water. In terms of CO2 and greenhouse effect it is absurd.
tunderbar04 5 months ago
@tunderbar04: Both ink (carbon) in water and CO2 in air do a good job of blocking the transmission of certain kinds of radiation. The fact that CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet was discovered in the 1800's and was written about in scientific journals. No body denied it then and it has been well proven since. If you would like to see a video of CO2 directly blocking heat transmission, see:
dannyastroYT 5 months ago 4
@dannyastroYT : Ink in water blocks light. We know that. And it is irrelevant to the CO2\greenhouse gas issue/paradigm. Just like comparing trace amounts of CO2 to trace amounts of cyanide or sarin is absurd, comparing CO2 in the atmosphere to ink in water is absurd. It is an illustration, a model, a way to represent an idea, but in the real world ink and water has zero to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. 14 ppm of CO2 cannot physically catastrophically alter the globes climate. Period.
tunderbar04 5 months ago
@tunderbar04: You are incorrect. What you are missing is that Oxygen and Nitrogen (the main components of air) have little to do with retaining heat in the atmosphere. It is only the amount (not the percentage) of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) that determine the amount of warming. And since there is about 3,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, that does a good job of retaining heat and that is about 38% higher (so far) compared with the pre-industrial value.
dannyastroYT 5 months ago 6
@dannyastroYT "I have never engaged in any activity that could remotely be confused with homework on this subject, but I have consulted with several political blogs, and a number of my friends in the trailer park and feel completely justified in saying that the actual scientists are full of crap."
TheFallibleFiend 1 month ago
@tunderbar04, I wonder if you're the sort who also claims that evolution is false, "period."
You can recognize a non-scientific mind by the person's tendency to frame everything in absolutes and ignore all analogies. Such minds gravitate toward religious dogma because they can't handle uncertainty or degrees of risk.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - Bad assumptions. Wrong on all counts. Nice try though. Moron.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
Comment removed
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 <<< another two bit mis-informer, his page says it all, hardly any video views in 3 years.
this video is an excellent demonstration of how co2 can effect our weather. thanks doc!
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
@vengencefrom1979 - ink is still not CO2 and water is still not the atmosphere.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 and yet most people dont understand the PARTS PER MILLION bit so they need it pictured for them, and even then, some dont understand it.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
@vengencefrom1979 - The CO2 has gone from ~290 parts per million to ~390 ppm, and only about 14 parts per million can be attributed to man, if we remove 14 ppm, it will make pretty much no difference. Trace amounts of increase in CO2 is still trace amounts of warming. Warming that is not even measurable in the atmosphere. And certainly nothing catastrophic in proportions.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04, exactly where are you getting the claim that only "14 ppm" is attributable to Man? It's actually 100+ ppm. That's the whole reason scientists are concerned in the first place, in case you didn't notice. You think they're simply lying? Wait, it's the big NWO conspiracy!
Cite a source or take your absolutist claims elsewhere, like some right-wing call-in show where nobody bothers to counter such lies.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 14 ppm is down to man? What sort of fuss brained garbage do you read? The increase is almost entirely down to our excess emissions. You went wrong by taking the proportion of total CO2 emissions down to man vs nature and dividing that into the increase since 280ppm. What you ignore is the natural absorption of CO2 that is larger than the natural emissions. Therefore ALL the increase is down to us. You really aren't smart enough to comment sensibly on this subject
aylesmerep 1 month ago
@aylesmerep - I understand that you alarmists have the "settled science". If it isn't 14 ppm, then what exactly is the correct figure. A cite to a scientific paper will be required. Good luck. Most of the increase was from natural sources. If you have the science you should have no trouble "debunking" the 14 ppm fihure.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 I already answered your "question" before. Clearly you don't pay attention.
You wrote "Most of the increase was from natural sources". Total B.S. Natural sources are slightly smaller than natural absorbers. ALL of the difference between 398 and 280 118 ppm) is down to us. If you want to see the science then bloody read it for yourself instead of turning a blind eye to it and arrogantly demanding that others should show it to you. Just who do you think you are?
aylesmerep 1 month ago
@aylesmerep, yes, tunderbar04 is committing the common wingnut error of treating natural background sources as foreground/additional sources.
It's like when Creationist Ronald Reagan claimed that trees cause "80%" of air pollution, ignoring that they've been doing that for eons, whereas Man has only recently upset the pollution balance. The meaning of "cumulative" is casually ignored to promote the agenda of Man being a harmless species.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@tunderbar04, ink and CO2 don't have to be exactly the same phenomenon for thinking people to derive a clue from the analogy. Emphasis on the word THINKING.
Here's another analogy: Sit in your vehicle on a sunny day, roll down a window and note the temperature. Then cover the open window with thin plastic screen material, comprising a tiny percentage of the interior airspace. Do you want to bet whether it will raise the interior temperature? That's a very direct analogy to the CO2 effect.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - The globe is not a car and CO2 is not a car window. Another waste of bandwidth post.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04, it's only "end of story" if you're too dim to grasp analogies, which is par for the course with science-deniers. You folks either try to dumb things down to a 3rd grade level, or pretend they're so complicated that the science will never be settled. Your real motive is obfuscation, not knowledge. Nobody intelligent is fooled by such ignorance.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - analogies are not science. Nice try.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - Feel free to link to the science that shows how trace amounts of CO2 can alter the globes climate on a catastrophic scale. Good luck.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04, I could show you a thousand SCIENCE links, but you'd ignore them, just as you've ignored the analogy in this video. You've clearly decided to not be objective. Is it an economic or religious motive?
I just read a disturbing article about how Creationists (and/or oil-industry parents) are now fighting the teaching of climate science in schools. The gist of it is: "Don't tell us we came from lower animals, and don't tell us we can mess up our planet, for we are the Chosen Ones."
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
@4aSteadyStateEconomy - show me one that shows the physics on how trace amounts of CO2 can affect the globes climate CATASTROPHICALLY. It doesn't exist.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04, there's a good article from NewScientist called "Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas"
Here's an important quote from that article: "So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere."
It explains the very thing you claim to seek answers to, and only takes 5 minutes to read (though longer to comprehend). Just one of many similar explanations.
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 month ago
I was looking at some of the calculations for biochar removal of greenhouse gases and was shocked at how much carbon is in the air over our heads. Standard atmospheric pressure is equal to 30 inches of mercury per/square/inch but that would be several feet of liquid nitrogen and oxygen. Even at 280 ppm the carbon contained in the atmosphere is some several millimeters graphite but I don't know how much. Could somebody with the proper reference materials do the calcs please.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
Water vapor is a heat trapping gas but it is short-lived (varies over a day) and is "controlled" by the other GHG's. CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years!
dannyastroYT 8 months ago 3
Yes, there are other green house gases such as methane and NOX, but CO2 is the dominant GHG in that it driving most of the excess warming. As the permafrost melts, methane may take on a bigger role. It's about 70 times more powerful in trapping heat than CO2, but it degrades to CO2 over about a decade. Therefore, over a century, methane is about 20 times more powerful than CO2.
dannyastroYT 8 months ago 3
This is deceptive. There are a lot of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat; CO2 is one of many.
If he were to add all of the other greenhouse gases in their parts per million in black ink and then add the black ink representing CO2, it would be a clearer analogy.
Irony alert: Water, in its vapor form, is a greenhouse gas.
riethc 8 months ago
@riethc No. It's not deceptive - it's just simplified.
aylesmerep 6 months ago
@aylesmerep - It's an analogy that fails in every way.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 You don't know what you are talking about. Brain dead denialists are constantly claiming that CO2 is a trace gas and therefore cannot affect anything. This demonstration points out that small amounts of stuff can have big effects.
All that was necessary to prove that denialists use stupid defective thinking was to show one simple example where a small amount of anything has a big effect. This does it.
aylesmerep 1 month ago
@aylesmerep - "denialists", I invoke Godwins Law - you lose. But to address your silly points. My argument is not that small amounts of anything cannot have a big effect. That is your concoction, your strawman argument, your false interpretation of what I said. My point is simple, small amounts of CO2 cannot physically alter the globes climate catastrophically. If you want to refute that statement, show us the settled science that says other wise. Ink in water proves nothing.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 take a look at paleoclimatology and the history of climate changes on this planet.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur - I have. And there is not one instance of CO2 leading temps, only CO2 lagging temps by about 800 years.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@tunderbar04 yes, warming relseases alot of CO2 for example by degasiation of the sea etc. and led to an amplification of the warming.
this is why our CO2 output is seen as so dangerously. because at some point the warmth will cause even more CO2 to be released and will further amplify the warming.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur - 100% pure speculation and conjecture. You have no science to support anything you've said.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
@riethc The point of the experiment is to show that even a "trace" gas can have an impact on the energy passing through the atmosphere.
If you add ink for the other greenhouse gasses, then it's even MORE of an impact.
And the water vapor thing isn't irony, it's a serious problem. As the climate gets warmer, water will evaporate more, and the air will hold more vapor. While this means more rain, it also means more water vapor in the atmosphere, which means more warming, which means more vapor
Alteredstory 6 months ago 2
Hmm yeah it's pretty obvious, too much CO2 makes it warmer, but the right ammount of CO2 makes it just warm enough to sustain life.
seonf 1 year ago
@seonf - No that is dead wrong.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
This is frigging ridiculous. Man made co2 is a mere 12 ppm. Ink is not co2 and water is not the atmosphere. This model represents nothing more than bad propaganda. And exceedingly bad science.
tunderbar04 1 year ago
@tunderbar04
Always good to have experts like you posting important comments. Poor world...
arschgeigenblogspot 1 year ago
@tunderbar04 : Mand made CO2 is around 390-280= 110 ppm, not 12, or over 35% increase from pre-industrial levels.
The experiment just answers a strong misconception that a small concentration can only lead to a small effect.
nigelelsass 9 months ago
@tunderbar04 The current CO2 concentration is 392.39ppm. In 1960 it was under 320ppm.
Alteredstory 6 months ago
Excellent demonstration of how small amounts can visibly affect their surroundings. Thank you!
Oh, and sorry - I definitely intend to steal your experiment and show it to others! ;)
TheSlowThinker 1 year ago
@ndyt
1) Duh! - The infra-red properties of CO2 were demonstrated by John Tyndall in 1859!
2) If you look at the ice-cores, pre-industrial CO2 was at ~280 ppm. All current life evolved to cope with 280 ppm. The rise to +385 ppm has happened at a current rate that's a million times faster than than the coal measured was deposited. 385 ppm is higher than at least the last 800,000 years.
tinyurl com/ ycnovk7
It is most likely much faster than species can adapt.
BlueManaos 2 years ago 7
@BlueManaos - temps have been warming since the last glaciation period. CO2 has been increasing in the last 150 years. One has no connection to the other. CO2 has never, in the history of paleoclimate LED temps, ever. And it is not doing that now.
tunderbar04 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
very misleading demonstration.
good enough for elementary school.
judomagyar 2 years ago
@judomagyar
'very misleading demonstration' - Why do you think this?
You don't say why. I suspect, that is because you have no response to such a simple demonstration that wouldn't make you look like an idiot.
Does it threaten your ideological mind-set?
BlueManaos 2 years ago 2
@BlueManaos
Ink is a particulate suspended in water.
It is more like smoke, which is particulates suspended in air.
Particulates act on a wide band of light, CO2 acts on a narrow band(s) of light.
Smoke tends to have a wider absorption spectrum.
judomagyar 2 years ago
@judomagyar - The demo is about showing what 280ppm looks like visually. It's not supposed to be an accurate depiction of CO2. However, saying that CO2 only absorbs a narrow bandwidth of light doesn't mean anything. The blackbody radiation is what's important... In this case, quite a large portion of photons fall within the range that excites CO2 molecules when emitted from surface heat.
crabber338 2 years ago 2
@judomagyar
You're struggling hard not to make yourself look stupid, and failing badly.
It was a SIMPLE d-e-m-o-n-s-t-r-a-t-i-o-n!
The trouble is that it conflicts with your P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S and your I-D-E-O-L-O-G-Y!
Your argument isn't scientific, but ideological.
So stop the pseudo-science! We're not stupid.
BlueManaos 2 years ago 3
@BlueManaos
What is the ideology of 20 years of satellite data?
Lindzen used THAT to show that the climate sensitivity in the IPCC model is wrongly assumed to be ~5C. It is actually about 0.5C!
No runaway greenhouse effect! Variations in CO2 concentration has negligible effect on global average temperature.
The only thing CAP-AND-TRADE will produce is some billionaires and international taxation.
judomagyar 2 years ago
Comment removed
BlueManaos 2 years ago
There is little doubt from the responses in the p-r literature that Lindzen & Choi 09, is fatally flawed. Lindzen was wrong with IRIS, and the extensive work in this area from paleoclimate etc. indicates that LC09 is very wrong.
The fact you focus on one outlying study when so many studies dispute its conclusions [but generally agree with each another], indicates your selective blindness is showing.
Furthermore, uncertainty should be a reason for increased caution, not greater confidence!
BlueManaos 2 years ago 3
@judomagyar Lindzen TRIED to show that, as he has been trying to show the same thing since the 80s. Every time he tries, he fails - his scientific papers get ripped to shreds by his peers. His idee fixe is simply wrong. Idiot denialists turn a blind eye to that because it suits their prejudices to believe him.
aylesmerep 1 month ago
It is specifically because it reacts with only a narrow band of radiation (not light) that makes CO2 a potent greenhouse gas. If it reacted with a broader spectrum, it would reflect more incoming solar radiation and cool the earth. But because it is transparent to most radiation but reacts with infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, it acts like glass in a greenhouse, letting light in but stopping heat from escaping.
dannyastroYT 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
CO2 is innocent!
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.
judomagyar 2 years ago
Well, then Dr. Miskolczi is wrong. Scientists can measure CO2's transmission bands in the laboratory. They also measure its effect in the atmosphere using satellites. Warm air holds more moisture than cold air and water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, so the increase in moisture content helps make it warmer. The last decade was the warmest since we began measuring temperature. You are arguing against something that is already occurring. Would you also like to debate gravity?
dannyastroYT 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@DANNYASTROyt
"The last decade was the warmest since we began measuring temperature"...
Well if you fit a least-square line on the data, the line is flat, in fact it has a slight negative slope.
60 years ago we also had a peak and now we are turning back down from this peak. A cooling period is coming and 60 years from now we will have another peak, etc...
Oh, I am not smart enough to debate gravity.
If you know what gravity is, you should debate it with Dr. Wilczek. :-)
judomagyar 2 years ago
@judomagyar
Miskolczi has been debunked.
Tinyurl com/ Miskolczi-debunked
Your willingness to cherry-pick; promote pseudo-scientific bullshit and dismiss mainstream science as suspect is diagnostic of a pseudo-sceptic.
And pseudo-sceptics are not genuine sceptics, but merely liars with an agenda driven by ideology or filthy lucre.
--
You cannot reason a man out of an opinion into which he was not reasoned to begin with
- Johnathan Swift
BlueManaos 2 years ago 6
@judomagyar
There can be ideology in the conclusions.
'...Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2 - 4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values....The WELL-CONSTRAINED LOWER LIMIT of climate sensitivity.... the upper limit of climate sensitivity will be more difficult to quantify....'
Tinyurl com/ Knutti-et-al-CO2-Sensitivity
BlueManaos 2 years ago 2
A great teaching tool!
ClimateSightful 2 years ago 2
To be precise, it's not the thermal expansion of water that causes the coke bottle to burst but the phase change from liquid to solid.
The volume change for thermal expansion around freezing is small - less then 0.1% per degree, but the volume change due to the change of phase is over 8%.
GorgeGeorg 2 years ago 3
I like this demonstration. It gives too perspective on how the most tiniest things can affect our climate, then again that would be a good argument against catastrophic Global Warming..
But anyhow, this is a good video and I applaud to it's fine example!
Finlandcitizen 2 years ago 2
For added affect you could do the same demonstration and measure light coming through the water with a meter of some sort. ... Just a thought.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
Very helpful teaching tool. Thanks for this.
OaktownBman 2 years ago 2
Thanks Dan. This was a nice demonstration of this issue.
It would also be nice to see a demonstration about the fundamental difference between the molecular structure of something like CO2 vs. O2. Something that demonstrates specifically why it is that CO2 captures and retains the energy in a way that O2 doesn't.
cornbreadjunkie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I just did a calculation. World's ocean area is 3.61 x 10^14 m sq. If Greeland melts they say sea will rise 7.2m. There is 2.85 x 10^6 km cubed of ice on Greeland. That's only about 2 million km^3. Multiplying 3.61x10^14 with 7.2m, to get volume it would take to raise ocean level 7.2 m, we get 25.99x10^14 cubic meters. There isn't enough ice in the world to raise the sea one meter.
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
The area of the oceans is 3.4 x 10^11 m sq., not 10^14. If all the ice melts, including Greenland and Antarctica, then sea levels will rise about 280 feet (85 meters).
dannyastroYT 2 years ago 2
huh - i'm getting both 10 to the 14 and 10 to the 11 on those numbers, depending on where I'm going to look. How come they can't get it straight?
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
Water expands as it gets warmer too. Check 'greenman3610'. His channel has some good arguments on climate change.
xPHOENIX269x 2 years ago 4
Do you means water contracts as it gets warmer? Because when water gets colder it expands. It's why if you freeze a Coke or a bottle of water in your freezer it bursts open.
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
@taylorgrey2004 It expands both when it gets colder and warmer. Water is the most dense at 4C, the further away it is on the temperature scale, the more space it fills.
DaJonas 2 years ago 3
What DaJonas says. I learned that in 9th grade Earth Science. In a public school too.
xPHOENIX269x 2 years ago 2
@taylorgrey2004
You are confused. Water is densest at ~ 4 degrees Celsius. Warming or cooling from this causes expansion.
BlueManaos 2 years ago 2
@BlueManaos OK - yeah I guess I was confused. But frozen water takes up more space than non-frozen water. However, it is less dense.
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The sea won't rise one inch in the face of global warming. The sea level may actually drop. Well those civilizations need destroyed because they're killing nature. They can move inland and leave their condos if the sea level rises, but it won't. 55 m.y.a. a tiny primate reached MS from Asia. It crossed the Bering land bridge. When climates were warmer these things CROSSED THE BERING BRIDGE. What does that tell you? Warming is good b/c the Earth now is too cold. Witness winter. Winter = death.
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
The Bering Straight was exposed during the last ice age, about 12 to 15 thousand years ago, when it was much colder and sea levels were much lower because there was much more ice on land in the form of huge glaciers (New York had a mile of ice above it).
dannyastroYT 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What about one million years ago? Let's be fair and say 50 million years ago - when the globe had warmed up significantly after the disaster that killed off the dinosaurs. CO2 was much higher then than it is today. 350 ppm is only dangerous to us because we think that's where it's supposed to be. Still, we must address pollution - harmful pollution. CO2 is a natural gas that will be used if forests unfreeze on Greenland an Antarctica. Personally, I think global warming is good.
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
Have you any idea of how many human beings live near the sea, and how many trillions of dollars humans have spent building civilization on coast lines and rivers? Have you considered the consequences to civilization of a sea level rise of 70 meters, where it was last time the planet was ice-free? Are you prepared to welcome refugees fleeing the rising tides, famine and disease which will ensue? Warming is neither "good" nor "bad" as far as the planet is concerned. It's indifferent to humans.
pjosephmd 2 years ago 5
It was warmer about 55 million years ago, which is called the PaleoceneEocene Thermal Maximum, which was a mass extinction event. I don't think having another mass extinction event is a good thing, though we are certainly headed for one.
dannyastroYT 2 years ago 8
@taylorgrey2004 The Sun was fainter back then so the greater CO2 did not lead to overheating but it did lead to most of the planet being good for life. If we had that level of CO2 now with our brighter Sun, we would be frying
aylesmerep 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wasting wooden chopsticks is not helping :-) I'm sure Borneo would agree
taylorgrey2004 2 years ago
The analogy of ink to CO2 isn't perfect, but this video does a great job of visualizing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and its effects on light penetration. REally good for non-science majors especially.
bethcf4p 2 years ago 18
This has been flagged as spam show
@bethcf4p: And really good for misrepresenting the reality that 14 parts per million of man made CO2 cannot possibly catastrophically alter the globes climate. The physics is not there.
tunderbar04 5 months ago