in

The Greenhouse Gas Demo

The Greenhouse Gas Demo



This discusses a short, but very effective and dramatic demo to show the effect on temperature of increased levels of carbon dioxide.

source

Erik Christensen

Report

What do you think?

Hero

Written by Aleksandar

Video MakerContent AuthorYears Of Membership

Comments

  1. You should also record the ppm difference in CO2 and plot that against temperature as well. It may be that if u raise from 280ppm to 500ppm the temperature increase is miniscule. You should also select a bulb with same spectral distribution as the sun and same intensity as the sun.

  2. Global warming (climate change) is really n othing but a science based religion. It’s an intellectual bait and switch scheme. If asked believers will supply you with a mountain of data. The data will do little more than vaguely suggest some alarming eventualities in the indeterminate future. If you then ask them to delineate the connection to carbon dioxide you can then expect to be called all kinds of derogatory names implying that you are self centered and don’t care about future generations.
    The revelation that global warming is a religion based loosely on science is hardly front page news. What is less well known is that the same can be said for aspects of meteorology, specifically the convection model of storm theory.
    My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms. Click the link below to see what all the excitement is about.
    Thank you for your support.
    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms.
    @t

  3. So doing the calculations, the temperature rose 44 – 35°C = 9°C. That is 9°C from 400 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm. That means 10 ppm change produces a 9/(1,000,000-400) = 0.000009°C difference. That’s insignificant.

    Let’s put it another way. In order to increase the temperature by 1°C, you need to increase carbon dioxide by 1/9 or to 100,000 ppm from 400 ppm.

  4. Need to run experiment with plain water in both bottles to be certain the lamp hits the bottles with same amount of energy and calibrate temperature probes. You need to mask the water part from light source. Certify same pressure in bottles. Co2 increase on earth is stupidly small. So A tenth of an out-breath down the bottle and stopper on would be correct.
    This experiment is a fail and works as propaganda only!

  5. The greenhouse effect depends on radiation from the surface, the radiation from the lamps does not include the frequency from the surface. All you are demonstrating is that the specific heat of CO2 is higher than Oxygen so it's temperature will increase more for the same input of energy. It will also cool faster. If you replaced the CO2 with Argon even higher temperatures would be achieved.

  6. Why don't you remove the white label at the back side of the CO2 bottle? That one will definitely do something with the temperature as it reflects energy back into the bottle.

  7. Here is the original experiment description from NOAA: http://web.archive.org/web/20060129154229/http:/www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm It was removed from the website in 2015 because it does not demonstrate the greenhouse effect on earth. A heat lamp bulb emits radiation at a temperature of 2500K-3000K while the earth's surface emits at a temperature of around 300K – completely different spectra of radiation. CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect is wavelengths near 15um; this is near the peak of radiation emitted by the earth's surface. A heat lamp bulb emits radiation at much shorter wavelengths. The experiment shows that CO2 absorbs radiation, but it's the wrong radiation for the greenhouse effect.

  8. So what did you learn in physics about the relationship between pressure and temperature? Have you honestly not even taught about that with a sealed bottle with a gas generator in it?

  9. What's interesting about this demonstration, is the belief that we need to conduct and experiment on atmospheric science in a lab. In actuality, climate scientists have collected cause and effect data on greenhouse gasses (GHG) now for the past six decades, in some cases down to the minute by minute level. Amazing stuff.

    Anyone can access and use that data to prove actual cause and effect. Does CO2 force T (global temperature) or does T force CO2? The answer is in those datasets. I've tested them all (took a year) and all show the same thing. No need to rely on ice core proxy samples any more. We have real-time measurements. If climate scientists took the time to look, they would find some interesting stuff that explains the 100K-yr climate cycles:
    1) Changes in methane forces temperature short-term and long-term.
    2) A given change in water vapor forces temperature more in places that have ample ground water and less in places that are arid.
    3) CO2 forces temperatures more in places that are void of flora and less in places with more flora.
    4) GHG explains about 10% of climate change.
    5) CO2-GHG, globally (given global levels of flora), forces temperatures for two weeks (strongly I might add).
    6) CO2-Greening (the impact CO2 has on flora to increase photosynthesis and leaf mass) takes about two weeks to detect.
    7) In four weeks, CO2-GHG + CO2-Greening has a net negative effect on climate change and works against H20 and CH4.
    8) The combined CO2 negative forcing effect (CO2-GHG + CO2-Greening), strengthens to a peak level in 8 months but is still clear after a year.

    So to summarize, H20, CH4, and CO2 all force climate given today's level of flora. But the total forcing effect of CO2 only lasts for about 2 weeks. After four weeks, CO2 is cooling the earth because of its stimulus to flora.

    Those findings are found in the following international real-time datasets: NASA, NOAA, WMO (Tokyo), Mauna Loa (Hawaii), Berkeley, Spencer Satellite, RSS, United Kingdom (Hadley), Cowtan/Way, South Pole, Barrow Alaska and others. And while many scientists are happy with 95% confidence (a 5% chance of being wrong), the climate datasets are so awesome (low noise) and large (sample size), that the results have less than a one in ten thousand chance of being wrong.

    CO2 is more than a green house gas.

  10. Earth – CO2 (in Earth´s atmosphere) = 40°C at noon
    Moon – no CO2 no atmosphere – 130°C at noon.

    Therefore, the bottle with CO2 is always colder.
    Try it without the water and with the same pressure in the bottles.
    The bottle with CO2 will always be colder.

  11. Can everyone in the comments calm down i am literally taking this experiment in the 7th grade meaning this is for children for a example it doesn't have to be logical and you guys are acting like legitamle scientects in the comments ;-;

  12. It is now absolute that CO2 has NO EFFECT ON EARTH'S MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE. It’s really quite simple. CO2 at altitude 90 – 100 km is emitting at -80° C, 15μm spectrum toward the surface which is 15° C. The energy levels of the surface equivalent to -80° C are full and the downward IR is reflected upwards. It is simply impossible for a cold body to heat a warmer body. We are done. No effect. Fantasy to think otherwise.

  13. And why do you stop in the middle of the experiment and not switching the light off and wait until the bottles have the same temperature again? Whats the time difference?

    And why don't you show the temperature difference between four hundred and two hundred eighty ppm CO2?

Loading…

0
AQUARIUMS saved my life (EMOTIONAL) PART 1

AQUARIUMS saved my life (EMOTIONAL) PART 1

Hoop House Construction, Part 3 of 3: Site Selection and Preparation, Hoop House Installation

Hoop House Construction, Part 3 of 3: Site Selection and Preparation, Hoop House Installation