Greenhouse effect (in a bottle) explained

[protonsforbreakfast]

I don’t know what the effect observed is due to but this does not show the effect of carbon dioxide similar to the Earth's greenhouse effect.

Think about it.

1.What the experiment appears to show is that CO2 absorbs visible light – which it does not.

2. One container has more CO2 >and< more water vapour – a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2

3. CO2 does not absorb much energy in the wavelength ranges emitted by a domestic light bulb whereas water vapour absorbs strongly.

[DontBendOverForAllah]

This experiment demonstrates C02 is a greenhouse gas. However the AGW hypothesis doesn't argue that, it's argument is that man's C02 contribution to the atmosphere is the dominate effect on the climate overuling the solubility pump, sunspots...etc

Do the same experiment with no C02 and lamps of different intensities and heypresto sunspots increase atmospheric temperature too.

There is a lack of proper metrics here.

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah 2010 was the hottest year on record (since modern records begun) yet there was very little sunspot activity. So we can rule out variation of the Sun as the cause of recent warming.

[DontBendOverForAllah]

@RasPesher "2010 was the hottest year on record (since modern records begun)" - WRONG! - Dr David Whitehouse recently won a £100 bet against that on "More or Less".

Why does the BBC (with their billions) not do a proper experiment with accurate levels of C02, pressure - maybe they did and got the wrong result?

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah Your game show used the HadCRUT3 dataset which does not include the Polar regions; so it's not truely global. Often this does not matter but in 2010 it was the Arctic region that warmed considerably. As a result the HadCRut dataset was a poor choice to use in 2010 and did not reflect the record temps for that year.

Not withstanding that, the HadCRUT dataset is sufficiently accurate to rule out Sunspot variations as the cause of recent warming.

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah "a proper experiment"

A proper experiment as you call it would involve getting 120km of atmosphere (and we have, it's called the Earth). NASA have, in particular, looked at how Infrared emissions have varied since about 1970. There is a plot of the results in my video called Global Warming - Fact or Fiction.

[DontBendOverForAllah]

@RasPesher "game show" it's a program about statistics.

2010 - Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia

Q "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"

A "Yes"

The hypothosis of AGW predicts that temperature is always additive. Plus don't forget the water vapour positive feedback cycle which would make this rise exponential. On the face of it AGW is exaggerated.

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah The period 1995-2009 warmed but just below the 95% significance level. Jones was referring to the HadCRUT dataset. The problem is that the HadCRUT set only covers 80% of the globe. Add in the other 20% of the globe and you'll get significance (see NASA GIS dataset for the same period).

With global warming it is energy that increases over time not necessarily temperature. It is possible to increase energy in the climate system but for temps to drop.

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah -An apparent paradox for you-

If I melt a portion of the ice caps, energy is required, yet the water produced from the ice will be zero degrees. If this water circulates around the globe I could reduce the average ocean temp and bring down the temperature of the air in contact with it. Hence a global climate energy increase with falling temperates.

[DontBendOverForAllah]

@RasPesher So global cooling is the new warming? - Priceless!!!

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah This should not come as a surprise. Whilst the trend over the last decade was a 0.15 deg C rise in temp the increase does not hold up from year to year. In the following years the temperature fell 1996 1999 2004 2006 2008. However this does NOT MEAN that the Earth lost energy in those years because it didn't. The energy has simply moved away from being measureable within the global temperature dataset.

[RasPesher]

@DontBendOverForAllah "So global cooling is the new warming"

What I said was that you can have an increase in energy in the climate system and still get cooler temperature readings. Basically what your saying is that you don't recognise the melting of the Arctic ice cap and Greenland as part of what we refer to as "Global warming". So when you hear on the weather report that we had another year of RECORD ICE MELT you think to yourself, "that's evidence of Global Cooling"!

[happinesson]

the experiment is simple,clear and very informative. Very well explained.

[byrev]

How can a molecule from 12 000 to heat the planet?

CO2 Percentage increase in the last 40 years is only 0.008% (one molecule of CO2 to 12 thousand gas molecules per m3) ... so The above experiment has nothing to do with global warming !!!

[assalane]

@byrev This experiment was only to prove the greenhouse effect of CO2. If you want to have to have an educated opinion on the subject you will have to read scientific publications on the subject.

But I'll do some shitty math using YOUR figure of 0.008%: atmospheric CO2 mass is 3.16×10^15 kg so 0.008% increase represent a 253 billion kg or 3.46x10^36 molecules of CO2, each having a green house effect. That's a number that humans cannot even comprehend.

Didn't get your question though.

[RasPesher]

@byrev Don't forget that the atmosphere goes up 120 km. CO2s share of that distance is 48m. That is a fairly thick blanket of pure CO2. Since CO2 has gone up by 40% since 1860, that is ~14m of that 48m blanket.

We need to get the 1/2 a degree of temp rise in perspective. So we need to express this as an increase in absolute temperate; that is 0.5 deg in 300degK (K being Kelvin).

Our increase. in temp is dT = 0.16%

Don't be too quick in writing off GW. Could 14m of CO2 increase T by 0.16%?

[RockbandGirl124]

How did she make the co2? Does anyone know the ingredients so i can make it? im trying to do this project for school and i cant find anything on how to get it or make it... any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Gnometower]

@RockbandGirl124 baking soda plus vinegar make an excellent and safe source of CO2

[RasPesher]

@Gnometower Yes beats the hell out of sticking the bottle against the exhaust pipe of the car.

[MountThor]

The effect that is causing the heating in this video is the Heat of Compression of the AIR and the CO2 bottles. Poke a hole in the lids or just open them and this heat effect will vanish. When heated gasses expand and when trapped in a closed volume their pressure increases causing heat.

See the excellent video (not on youtube) and article by searching for "Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered written and produced by Carl Brehmer".

It's important to get the facts correct.

[RasPesher]

@MountThor Your Carl Brehmer simply let the heat escape. What was he thinking?

Since PV = NkT - Ideal Gas Law

where P is Pressure, V is Volume, N is no. of gas particles, k is Boltzmans Constant and T is absolute Temp.

This means for Temp to increase either Pressure increases or Volume increases. If you replace the cap with a balloon over the top of the bottle, you'll find that the volume will expand (into the balloon and effectively releasing the pressure) without loosing the heat.

[deanofharvard]

Interesting video. I was wondering... Greenhouse gasses are supposed to work like insulation, right? If the CO2 were a good insulator it would heat up slower but give off heat longer right? Did you test to see which bottle cooled down quicker? If the CO2 bottle cooled down quicker than normal air that would make me think it wasn't a good greenhouse gas. It's be like trying to keep warm with a silk dress shirt as opposed to a thick jacket.

[RasPesher]

@deanofharvard The characteristic that defines whether a gas is a greenhouse gas or not is whether it ABSORBS INFRARED radiation NOT its insulation properties. Above the Earth's atmosphere is the perfect insulator, a vacuum. Have you got a thermos flask? Even though it is a good insulator it can't keep your tea or coffee hot forever. Why? Because Infrared radiation passes through a vacuum unaffected.

[wtube502]

my family had to buy co2 GENERATORS in order for Any kind plant in our greenhouses to grow optimally. they were programmed to keep the level of co2 at 1500ppm+. sometimes it was set as high as 2200ppm. biologists say this is because the plants evolved under those atmospheric conditions. our baseline was around 380ppm which is about the global average. can someone explain to me Logically why the 400's is now considered catastrophic?

[RasPesher]

@wtube502 In the past the Sun was 20% cooler. Back then 2200ppm equated to relatively moderate temps. Since then the Sun's intensity has increased but leveled off. Our current warming is not therefore due to the Sun.

What happened to the CO2 you may ask? When temps increased, additional rainfall sequestered CO2 into the Earth, until temps dropped. Rainfall is certainly increasing in recent times. However will this extra sequestration rate be able to match our extra CO2 production?

[zxcv73]

Really? Just 5 degrees? That's it?? And 80% co2 is obviously way more CO2 than the atmosphere could ever be comprised of, ever. We would all suffocate before the heat actually killed us. No one can be seriously worried about this can they? Could Ice caps really melt from only 5 degrees hotter? If I turned my freezer even 8 degrees less cool... nothing would happen. I was kind of skeptical before the experiments I've seen, now I'm not worried at all. Thank you Youtube, that's a load off my back.

[GabachoDSanchez]

@zxcv73 If you turned your freezer 8 degrees cooler everything would undoubtedly melt

[zxcv73]

@GabachoDSanchez How would making my freezer cooler make anything melt? It would "undoubtedly" make things in the freezer 'cooler' than they were. You sir are a moron, no offense.

[GabachoDSanchez]

@zxcv73 If you turned your freezer 8 degrees warmer everything would undoubtedly melt

[RasPesher]

@zxcv73 The lamp used to warm the CO2 in this experiment is much warmer than the Earth. The radiation entering the bottle is at a much higher frequency than that emitted by the Earth. CO2 has two thin absorption bands in this range. At the lower IR range CO2's absorption band is larger, so in reality it will have a greater effect than demonstrated here. Furthermore GHGs work in concert to block the escaping radiation. So combined their effect is larger.

[zxcv73]

@RasPesher So we are now worried about the Earths warmth emission? I'm pretty sure that the sun does most of the work.

[RasPesher]

@zxcv73 The total of the Sun's energy that penetrates through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface of the Earth is ACTUALLY LESS THAN the total (black body) radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth. That is because part of the energy emitted by the Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted back to the Earth making the Earth hotter than it otherwise would (ie from the effect of the Sun alone).

[RasPesher]

@zxcv Cont...

This does not mean that the intensity of radiation from the Sun is necessarily less than the Earth's (black body) radiation. The Earth emits its radiation over the entire surface area of the globe (an area of 4 Pi r²) whereas the light from the sun is spread over a disc the cross sectional area of the earth (an area of Pi r²); which is ¼ of the area.

[david222444]

The lamp in the co2 bottle is 100w while the lamp in the air bottle is 60w.

[bbhwy]

For those who say that this experiment is not valid because the CO2 in the atmosphere is only .04%, that is not a proper argument.

The percentage of CO2 is a relative amount, the amount of CO2 compared to the amount of air. The important thing is not the relative amount, but the absolute amount. The atmosphere contains a whole lot more CO2 than the bottle, even though it also contains a lot more air.

[Queenminny26]

1:45

"and this increases the temperature of planet errr ahth" ... lmaooo

[morninlordy]

This is a totally flawed experiment if trying to prove that climate change is due to rising CO2 levels. Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 0.038%. The experiment raises this towards 100% to prove the point! This is bad science. The experiment should show at what concentration of CO2 it starts to make a difference.

[cbrehmer]

The main disagreement in the debate over carbon dioxide’s effect on air temperature is whether or not it is significant enough to worry about. In this experiment the 100% carbon dioxide bottle was about 5 degrees warmer than regular air. To extrapolate from this experiment how much warming CO2 adds to air, which contains about 0.04% CO2, one has to divide that 5 degrees by 2500 which equals 0.002 degrees of warming due to CO2. Is that enough to worry about?

[RasPesher]

@cbrehmer This experiment is a demonstration of concept but not suitable for extrapolation. If you want to know how the Earth reacts to 400ppm just go back to the last time the CO2 levels reached that level. When it did temperatures were between 5 and 10 degrees F hotter than today. So that is what we can expect when thermal equilibrium is reached. Also the sea level was between 75 and 120 ft higher. The Earth is its own best simulator.

[sirlight87]

sorry, I think CO2 is the most responsible factor in GW but this experiment is too bad. Firt, the CO2 lamp is too near to the bottle, second CO2 is introduced in the bottle without to close the bottle than it can run away...

it is necessary to have a black slab under the bottles...in this experiment there is no much "standardized" emission in IR for CO2... there is only a very very near lamp

[sirlight87]

@sirlight87 ah, we need, possibly, a great bottle... very great! remember than atmosphere is not a bottle! or a spheric cow!

[AniodD]

Onoz she is producing CO2 OMGOMGOMG!

[bugsz1]

Shouldn't you use only one lamp? Your experiment is flawed.

[buddcinder]

The proper way to test whether CO2 raises temp would be to use a single lamp on a single bottle, turn light on and allow the temp to become stable, then add CO2 while keeping track of temp and amount of CO2 that's added.

Her experiment shows only that one bulb may be closer than the other. This is very lame on scientific method because she is allowing more than one variable. The two bulbs don't give off the exact same heat, can't be placed at exact distances from bottle.

This is a bad attempt.

[RasPesher]

@buddcinder "Her experiment shows only that one bulb may be closer than the other"

The mythbusters do a similar experiment to this but in their experiment they use a light meter to check that the light intensity is the same going to each greenhouse.

[xxDarkGregxx]

I do believe in global warming, although she said that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But yet, water vapor is a part of the ecosystem itself. So...?

[endergt]

@xxDarkGregxx Water vapor has a much faster cycle - i.e. it condenses and precipitates before it can have as significant an effect. CO2 doesn't condense in the same manner.

[strikerhiryu]

This video is stupid. Co2 produces more heat that air, but this proves nothing, because the atmosphere is much more than co2, air and water.

Also greenhouse effect in mass produces global cooling. Just redo the experiment with a cooler instead of lamp. You will have dry ice. :D

[blahyapyap]

Does the reaction used to make carbon dioxide produce heat? Her shirt is lighter behind the carbon dioxide bottle, so more light can get to it. Also the room lighting shows that more light is being reflected from the normal atmosphere bottle.

[barryschwarz]

I'd suggest that doubters posting here look up 'CO2 experiment' on you tube, which runs the experiment in a different way - i.e., one source of heat and one volume of atmos - but no doubt they'd make up more pretty stories to convince themselves that it's all fake.

The resistance to even simple facts about AGW is astounding. Just goes to show how ideology can kill reasonable skepticism and basic curiosity.

[barryschwarz]

This is a simple experiment. Others much like it are run in uni and high school classes, done thousands of times the world over. I'll be saving this vid to show the troglodyte and pseudo-scientific deniers who ask for empirical evidence that increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere can cause warming.

[feelzthelove]

@barryschwarz How much CO2 is too much?

[formulaone123]

So have they got the contents at 380 parts per million as in real life, and to start at 250 parts which it was at the beginning of the century. This experiment is bollocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[unillenium]

So considering the specific heats and setup of the expiriment you can then determine that there is no net heating effect caused by the carbon dioxide. (the increase in temperature is explainable by the physical properties of the medium as opposed to by an increase in energy.)

[campgalley]

@unillenium : I like your deduction. Well done

[unillenium]

Infact at room temperature the specific heat of carbon dioxide is about 0.850; (air is 1.005)

31.2/36.1= 0.864

Eerily close to the specific heat of carbon dioxide; which would make sense since because of CO2s greater density it would force all of the air towards the top of the bottle and back through the tube into the top of the other bottle.

[unillenium]

Thermodynamics fail -

Carbon dioxide has a much lower specific heat than the average specific heat of gases in earths atmosphere.

Therefore assuming both bottles receive the same amount of heat energy from their respective lamps it would be expected that you would find a higher temperature into the bottle with a higher level of CO2.

It is clearly visible in this video that both lights are not set up at perfectly identical angles. I bet you can't guess which one is receiving more heat

[WoofMagic]

Science is about accurate measurements. If your going to relate the greenhouse effect to the atmosphere, and our effect upon it, accurate measurments are vital. The stated rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is a rise of 150 parts per million from 300ppm to 450ppm. What happens to the rise in temperature when we increase CO2 by this amount? Not measuring the CO2 makes this experiment "bad science".

[slhance]

Awesome, I'm trying to build a small container that pressurizes CO2 to a plant, this experiment gave me some ideas. Also, I'm a science teacher in training so this is great. Thanks!