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.

[@WForrestFrantz]

1) NaCO3 + H2O is an exothermic reaction, releasing heat. That would cause the CO2 bottle to be warmer. 2) Because the bottles are corked, the gas pressure in the CO2 bottle is greater. Q (heat) is a function of mass (the mass of the gas is greater because the solid tablets are being converted to gas). On the other hand, the specific heat (C) of CO2 is less than N or O (air) which would make the CO2 bottle warm slower. So the net effect would depend on the pressure (mass of CO2) in the corked bottle. Q = Mass x C x delta-Temp 3) The concentration of CO2 in the bottle is most likely upwards of 10% (10,000,000 ppm), a bit higher than 400 ppm. 4) The watts per square meter of a UV light that close to the bottles is more than 10x the wattage coming from IR emitted from Earth back into the atmosphere (the photons captured by CO2). 5) The initial reaction forms the gas H2CO3 that later forms CO2 + H2O. In an open bottle, the H2O would evaporate and cool the bottle (think about what come out of a car exhaust). Earth is not a closed bottle. 6) The experiment doesn't allow for the Earth process of equilibrium (night time loss of heat)--the light is kept on. So the heat content isn't allowed to find equilibrium as happens on Earth. What is most interesting is: a) I can't find any realistic experiments showing that CO2 causes an increase in temperature. b) In the past 65-million years of known Earth history, there isn't a correlation between CO2 and temperature. c) In the past 800,000 years (void of epic events), the relationship between CO2 and temperature is: ... both temperature and CO2 rise and fall regularly in a similar pattern before industrialization. ... temperature change precedes the change in CO2 levels by 200 to 600 years. ... by the exact timing and amount predicted from the oceans warming and releasing dissolved CO2. That pretty well sums up why 30,000+ scientists (chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists, and others) disagree with the 400 Climate Scientists espousing the premise that CO2 has a significant effect on Earth, besides the obvious and proven Greening of Earth (see recent post to NASA site on a 33 year global study).

[@koendefraeye29]

if the heat capacity is lower, then you would need less energie per unit of temperature increase, no? However I do think industrialization has an effect on global temperature. I don't like experiments who happen to confirm the hypothesis, but actually are due to irrelevant parameters. We need to be extremely cautious if we don't want to confuse the general public.

[@WForrestFrantz]

@@koendefraeye29 -- Yes. In my haste, I made two errors. On item 2 above, it would warm faster, not slower (C is lower) and at that particular frequency of light, it would be far faster (C would be more that 30% lower) than O or N. We should also note that the differences in C for CO2, O, and N are fairly close to each other when the volume is constrained (Cv) as in the experiment but quite different under Earth's open atmosphere (Cp).

[@RScottLaMorte]

Throw five alka seltzer in a mug of water at home. How hot did the mug get? How hot was it an hour later? This should prove the reaction is not the source of heat. Both lids have holes in them, there's no significant pressure difference. In any case you can run this experiment at home and apply better controls and get the results yourself. That's the whole point of easy experiments like this.

[@WForrestFrantz]

Yes the lids have holes in them plugged with sensors leads.

[@WForrestFrantz]

@@RScottLaMorte if you carefully observe, the space between the bottles slowly decreases as is what happens when soda bottles pressurize

[@mysterivan]

There is a glaring error in the design of this experiment. When Alka Seltzer effervesces it not only produces CO2, it also violently ejects water droplets into the air column. This would drastically alter the humidity of the air in the experimental bottle. More humid air has a greater heat capacity, The experiment needs to be redesigned to be an accurate representation of CO2 versus plain air.

[@gasfe78]

plus pressure is different on each bottle.

[@chuckbrown617]

Additionally, there is a disparity in gas density as CO2 is more dense than "air".

[@adrianvance556]

Right. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. The "test" flask here has 60% to 90% CO2 and as a physical scientist I can prove that is critical and fatal to this demo.

[@mysterivan]

@@adrianvance556 Bravo... concentration is key.

[@mysterivan]

@@adrianvance556 I wanna see a comparison of 0% CO2 to 0.04% CO2...

[@jeffreytolliver2]

How much CO2 is that bottle? What about the added pressure? I’m more curious to see how much effect there is by adding like 100 PPM of CO2

[@chinese1942]

Good point! there is much more CO2 in that "atmosphere" than you find in nature.

[@GhostlyJorg]

Look up "greenhouse gasses". It's not just CO2. Without them the average temperature would be −18 °C / 0 °F. The present situation is a delicate balance

[@nniallo]

At a guess something north of 200,000 ppm

[@RScottLaMorte]

@@chinese1942 This isn't meant to be a simulation of nature. This is a simple experiment you can do at home that proves CO2 has a warming effect.

[@entyropy3262]

@@RScottLaMorte It only proves, that increasing pressure creates heat.

[@natekt]

This was posted 9 years ago and I still see comments from the last few months.

[@devtanna8503]

we have a test about this rn...

[@izzycheuk4572]

online school be like

[@5Cats]

It shows up more in searches I suppose. It's just trash though, it should be used in a lesson of how NOT to conduct an experiment.

[@scibanana3542]

@@5Cats there is no wrong way to conduct an experiment, because an experiment is an experiment. Everything is an experiment.

[@5Cats]

@@scibanana3542 That is absolutely wrong. This is not an "experiment" it is propaganda. Lying about every single element of the 'experiment' (directly or through omission) makes it actually harmful to people seeking things like facts and truth. If you set up your 'experiment' with a result in mind, then fake or alter the elements of it to achieve that conclusion? That's not science, that's religion, which is what AGW Alarmists (like this guy) gleefully do. They lie, but it's "for your own good" you see?

[@maitland1007]

Nice demo. Have you tired increasing the pressure in the 'control' bottle so both bottles have the same pressure, just to rule out that variable?

[@JacobJonesy]

There should to be a way of measuring the light intensity inside the bottle as well. It is also not known what the spectrum and relative intensities across it of his bulb is and how it compares to the sun

[@grindupBaker]

The "greenhouse effect" of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere have nothing to do with "the spectrum" of the Sun.

[@Stethacanthus]

A good way to test that would be to quickly vent the bottle to release the pressure. If you’re really concerned about pressure or the tablets, you can do dry ice with water an otherwise closed container and a long hose (let it reach room temp) gently blowing the CO2 into the bottle long enough to increase the concentration before sealing. Alternatively, you could also do this with balloons and control for pressure using volume as a proxy, but you’ll want a larger sample size to account for variation between balloons.

[@chuckbuxbaum4509]

www.brainpickings.org/2010/10/11/the-scale-of-the-universe/

[@BryceLeeatgoogle]

By adding all the tablets, rather than one small fleck, have you estimated how many parts per million of co2 you added?

[@richiebogie]

Thanks for posting this experiment. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you repeated this experiment but this time 1) use only enough alka seltzer to double current atmospheric CO2 from 390 parts per million to 780ppm (possibly in the year 2150) and 2) use a large open tub instead of a closed bottle to keep pressure same and see the effects of convection currents (if any)

[@adrianvance]

You can see a properly done demo of this kind, using only sunlight, 0.1 molar air volume and measured amounts of acetic acid and sodium bicarbonate so you can increase the amount of CO2 in terms of ppm, etc. at: ScienceFrauds.blogspot.com under the title "CO2 Is Innocent."

[@BladeJones]

Yes! You are sniffing out the truth! It would debunk the whole anthropogenic narrative if he did that. Mythbusters already debunked the whole narrative. They had to add over 500 times more CO2 (than the 0.0139% that levels have increased since the 1800s) in order to get a 0.9-degree increase.

[@TomD0131]

Another variable you did not mention at the end is that the alka seltzer causes the pressure to increase in the second bottle. It would be good to manage this variable too.

[@joiamed8544]

PV = nRT

[@Inquisitor6321]

Increase in pressure increases temperature.

[@JackFou]

@@Inquisitor6321 if you compress a gas the temperature increases but without a continuous energy source such as the lamp, the temperature from the increased pressure will just dissipate into the environment.

[@Inquisitor6321]

@@JackFou Not when you have a sealed container.

[@JackFou]

@@Inquisitor6321 dude are you high or something? Of course the temperature dissipates. Heat flows from a warm body to the colder environment per 2nd law of thermodynamics. The walls of the container are not perfect insulators. Conductive heat transfer is a thing.

[@chuckbux]

I did the experiment without increased pressure by releasing co2 gas into the bottle through a hose for 30 seconds. (This forced the air out and replaced it with co2). Then we sealed both bottles simultaneously. We monitored the temperature for 35 minutes. The co2 bottle was just under 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer on average. I replicated it four times, one for each class, switching which bottle got the co2, to eliminate that source of error. We used 1gallon glass apple juice jugs, with 1qt water, 3qts gas (either air or co2). In this video pressure is the main reason the experimental treatment increase temp so much. In mine the pressure was controlled. The temperature increase was consistent 4x. Of course, I was comparing 410ppm co2 with almost pure co2, which is nothing like our atmosphere, but it did definitely demonstrate the greenhouse effect.

[@titter3648]

And how did you control for the temperature of the CO2 gas?

[@gerainthughes3725]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJjNhZJsa5qHbLc CO2 DOES NOT induce warming by way of back irradiance.

[@hajkie]

So your experiment repeatedly shows that the bottle with CO2 was always 1.5 degrees warmer. Is that what youre telling us charles?

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

So in summation what you are saying that this experiment is not analogous to the possible effects of small increases in co2 in our atmosphere? Is that what you told the kids or did you show them another scaremongering doomsday video from Hollywood or Greta Thunberg productions?

[@Fastbikkel]

@@arnesaknussemm2427 "another scaremongering doomsday video from Hollywood or Greta Thunberg productions?" This sentence takes your whole reply down to childish level. It's better, also for yourself, to not fall for these remarks and just stick to the content and facts.

[@taylorst123]

If you think you've found a flaw in this experiment - by all means, repeat the experiment (for all of $20 & 30 mins work) and _demonstrate_ what's wrong, you would get a nobel peace prize for upending hundreds of years of basic physics. This isn't an experiment, for chrissakes, it's a demonstration you can do in a year 10 classroom! If you think cutting edge science happens in a year 10 classroom, you probably need to adjust your expectations of what we have figured out in the last 200-so years. Finally - the only people denying CO2 is a GHG are politicians. If you trust them over scientists, we really are doomed.

[@ksnow34]

I believe in science and climate change, but this demonstration does not work if you balance the light between the two bottles. I say this after several attempts to repeat this demonstration, and if you keep other variables constant, the two bottles increase at the same rate and to the same static temperature. Now if you want to teach 10 year old kids good science by badly flawed examples, you can point the light at the CO2 bottle and it will get hot faster, and reach a higher maximum temp.

[@laospeedwagon3023]

I think you mean the Nobel prize for science in physics. This experiment would end no conflict nor save any lives, neither would it be considered a tremendous humanitarian effort, for which the peace prize is reserved (as was the case with mother Theresa).

[@computerfis]

@@ksnow34 Yeah i would agree too. I believe in climate change as a person who do not know one thing about it except the basics. But the light of that warm lamp must have been a variable to consider. I would say keep your outside variables out of it ( or should we say outside of it (; ). This is a bad experiment to even show to high school children. Please keep your experiment clear and scientific, this is the next generation of science kids we are trying to to impress an make a real an impressive experiment with.

[@computerfis]

@@laospeedwagon3023 Hey speedwagon we are not talking about nobel prize winners here. Instead we are trying to discuss this video, and how it can enrich us all, sience is fun :D

[@laospeedwagon3023]

Vote_for_pedro OK Pedro (BTW that was a great movie.) let’s talk about the video. It’s a bad video! Or more specifically, what is IN the video is bad. let me explain. First, the demonstration (it is NOT an experiment) is a demonstration of bad science. And second, the production values are terrible! Now I don’t think anybody here really gives a damn about the production values so let’s focus on the bad science: Scale; if our earth was scaled down to the size of a basketball the troposphere (the gaseous part of our atmosphere we breathe) would be thinner than one sheet of ordinary printer paper. Yet the gaseous space within the bottle, which arguably has a surface area much smaller than that of a basketball, was MASSIVE! Likewise the energy source was massive. It would not be hard to imagine that if our sun put out as much energy (to scale) as the light in that “experiment“ the planet earth would still be in a molten state. Last, let’s look at the gaseous space within the bottle. Now while the space is laughably out of scale, the contents of the gaseous space are even more so. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is minute. It’s such a small fraction of our atmosphere that it’s measured in parts per million (ppm) yet the CO2 produced by the Alka-Seltzer tablet would’ve pushed out almost all other gases creating an “atmosphere“ of near 100% CO2. So to conclude, not only are the results of this “experiment“ invalid, but unless a peer reviewed study has shown that burning fossil fuels will change our atmosphere such that it will become almost ENTIRELY CO2 as a result, then the “experiment“ itself is invalid! This is bad science! Everybody knows CO2 two traps heat. What this man did in the video is scientific pornography! It’s designed to shock, and titillate. It’s intended to con the scientific illiterate into believing that the earths median temperature could increase as much is 9°C because look… CO2!!!

[@DaveWatts_ejectamenta]

Except that liberation of gas from a solid is an exothermic process. Better just to introduce the CO2 gas directly.

[@jonjudice1155]

Let’s review a couple problems that exist with this experiment and this conclusion? Problem #1-Specific Heat In physics, specific heat (cp) is the amount of heat in joules (J) required to raise the temperature of one gram (g) of a given substance one degree centigrade (°C). The specific heat of air and CO2 in J/g/°C are: Air - 1.005 CO2 - 0.709 All things being equal, a bottle filled with CO2 will always warm faster and to a higher temperature when heated than does a bottle filled with regular air because the specific heat of CO2 is lower than that of air. Consequently, less energy is needed to to raise one gram of CO2 one °C than one gram of air one °C. Ergo, this experiment demonstrates nothing more than the principle of physics called “specific heat”. It does not confirm the notion that CO2 at .04% of the atmosphere is causing global warming via a “greenhouse effect”. Just as an aside, the effect of doubling the current concentration of CO2 on the specific heat of air would be miniscule; it would decrease it by 0.0002 Problem #2-glass is said to be opaque to IR radiation These experiments purport to be measuring the ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation compared to air, yet they are often done in containers that are said to be opaque to IR radiation by advocates of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. Here is a definition of the “greenhouse effect” that is currently being taught to students at Chicago’s Elmhurst College. “Greenhouse Analogy: Energy from the sun in the form of some ultraviolet and visible light (short wavelength) passes through the glass of the greenhouse. As the light strikes various surfaces in the greenhouse and they are heated. These surfaces in turn re-radiate the heat in the form of infrared radiation (long wavelength). However, the IR radiation is blocked from escaping by the glass. IR is not able to pass through the glass, hence the greenhouse air heats up fairly dramatically.” If what they believe is true-IR radiation is blocked by glass-then what is physically happening in these experiments is that the heat lamp is simply heating the container itself which in turn heats via conduction the gases inside of the container and again, the CO2 gas warms faster and to a higher temperature than the air because its specific heat is lower. The deception of children is easy; many of them believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. You can perform a parlor trick in the classroom, e.g., show them an experiment that demonstrates the scientific principle called “specific heat” and call it a “greenhouse effect,” and they will believe you. When one grows up though one is supposed to stop believing in fantasies.

[@europaeuropa3673]

Excellent analysis, I commend your scientific ability. Also CO2 absorbs strongly at 15 microns, which is long wave. It doesn't absorb the shorter wavelengths. As a graduate engineer having studied CO2 absorption I am convinced that CO2 is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. There are other simple tests than anyone can do on their own to prove this.

[@jonjudice1155]

@@europaeuropa3673 thank you, and you're right as well but who's gonna listen to us? The other thing people seem to not realize is how important Co2 is to the life cycle. 180ppm plant life starts to die. We barely hit 400ppm and everyone is flying off the rails. It's lunacy! Why do farmers pump Co2 into their greenhouses? Not for heat, it's because that's what they want, close 1000ppm. I just don't know anymore. It's like why do people listen to other people over you, even when they know those people have been wrong or straight up lie to them, why?

[@adrianvance556]

IR is blocked by glass? Wrong! Try it Not one thing you have said here is valid.

[@GoA7250]

I laughed so hard I almost shit.

[@GoA7250]

@DAISY DARNELL Because if this is the level of critical examination needed to convince someone of something, I have a bridge selling company to start up... You want in?

[@adrianvance556]

I do wish you had said that more gracefully, but you are right. This has nothing to do with the atmosphere. It is not quantitative and is nonsensical.

[@themadcow686]

2:55 other variables that weren't taken into consideration is the fact that the CO2 concentration in that bottle was about a million times more potent than the levels in the atmosphere and the temperature variance is only 10 degrees celsius.

[@RScottLaMorte]

This isn't a simulation of the Earth's atmosphere. This is an experiment you can do at home that proves CO2 has a greenhouse effect.

[@themadcow686]

@@RScottLaMorte Yes I agree but the rate of the temperature rise claimed to be caused by burning resources is grossly exaggerated.

[@RScottLaMorte]

@@themadcow686 The rate of fossil fuel burning is measurable. The first estimates were made in the 1890s. The rise in atmospheric C02 is measurable. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is testable and a known factor. The rise in global temperature is measurable both directly and by established historic proxies. Which of these do you think is exaggerated?

[@stevofromiowa]

@@RScottLaMorte You could quadruple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and and it would still play an insignificant role in regards to total greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the true control knob because it has a far wider spectrum of absorption of IR and is exponentially more abundant. That we've pumped a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere is irrelevant. All we've done is skew the ability to use natural CO2 levels as a proxy to prove a warming planet, not cause the planet to warm.

[@kd5055]

@@stevofromiowa But Water vapour unlike CO2 has a precipitation effect releasing the heat. But Heat in CO2 lingers on for years. Stop eating into the FF Industry's half baked science propaganda.

[@daniellejones4753]

I would add a tip for prep, that you find a non-LED bulb. Not much heat is thrown off of these new energy-efficient bulbs. And for a short lesson (my push-in lessons are 30 minutes) a heat lamp might make even more sense. Thanks for the video, very clear set up!

[@stevewilson4321]

Im impressed how old are you ? You not only understood the demo your suggestion actually makes sense... That puts you in top 1% of commenting here... Its been 3 yrs did you go into science ?

[@daniellejones4753]

@@stevewilson4321 Lol at the time I was a science teacher at an elementary school, hence the "push-in lessons." M.S. is in Educational Leadership & Policy.

[@aluisious]

@@daniellejones4753 $5 says that guy saw your thumbnail portrait and got thirsty

[@terjegronlie1181]

Furthermore, soda contains about 6-8 grams/Liter, equivalent to about 6-8000 ppm. By increasing the atmospheric pressure using alka seltzers you reduce the boil time of water.

[@languagetruthandlogic3556]

Good comment. When we breath out, the air contains 40000ppm. 4 seltzer tablets in 2 litres of water is probably around 100000ppm The deceitful inference here is that such an effect is present in earth's atmosphere.

[@titter3648]

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?

[@RScottLaMorte]

Take two 2L bottles of soda, shake one to increase the pressure, and measure the temperature of each. Physics predicts there will be no significant temperature change, and you can test this yourself, it's so easy!

[@RScottLaMorte]

@joao goncalves You are welcome to test this at home. Put two 2L bottles in the sun, shake one, and measure the temperature. Don't take my word for it. You can confirm for yourself there will be using a home thermometer that there is no measurable rise in temperature.

[@dankmemer9731]

@@RScottLaMorte birb :(

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

@@RScottLaMorte what would be the measurable rise in temperature if just 100 ppm of CO2 ( comparable to the amount human activity is claimed to be adding to the atmosphere) were added to that bottle?

[@robvlob]

@@arnesaknussemm2427 Possibly around the same difference as the experiment. Can you guess what other factor would also have to change besides CO2? The answer is really simple, the execution of the other factor would be far more time consuming.

[@cacadriv]

The earth atmosphere is not concealed to a fixed the volume, the atmosphere expands outward as there are more gas molecules filling the space.

[@adrianvance556]

Gravity is a very good bottle.

[@roger_is_red]

loved it a perfect demo of ghg!

[@grindupBaker]

Sure. Of course it's been done professionally in detail must be hundreds of times since 150 years ago when it was first done and published as a scientific paper. Of course you can buy on the internet equipment that will analyze the actual frequency spectra of gas absorption & emission. The field is called "gas spectroscopy". Still it's fun to see a hobbyist do it roughly for $7.

[@xYondaimexJD]

This experiment is very misleading. Guy-Lussac's law tells us that absolute pressure is directly proportional to absolute temperature. By adding two tablets into a fairly closed bottle, he increased the total number of moles of gas which increases the total pressure. Naturally this increases the temperature since more molecules leads to more collisions and higher average kinetic energy. The differences in temperatures between the two bottles should actually be higher, but the fact that he used a crappy make-shift system, led to the observed results. The better experiment should have been to fill a chamber with a known concentration of CO2 and let one bottle equilibrate in the chamber for a few minutes, careful to keep the temperatures the same for both samples. Perfectly seal both bottles with silicon and perhaps use a thermo-coupler. Confirm that the starting temps are indeed the same prior to exposure to heat lamp and then start the experiment.

[@bwj999]

Perhaps 2 insulated bubble sacs, one fillled with air and other with co2. This would conrol for pressure and also would remove the water effect. The water in this experiment being cloudy might be said to affect temperature. Obviously greenhouse effect is well founded concept but the experiment would be better if we removed any variables to address the doubters. CO2 is $$$ esp for those who currently control our economy and media.

[@esajarvi2591]

It's not pressure. There was a similar experiment now gone here that had stoppers with small vent holes.

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

If the greenhouse effect didn't exist we'd not even have our weather. Look, molecules that absorb energy from the sun also release it, except they gain energy from ONE direction and release it in ALL directions. What is released upwards, much of it goes back into space. What is released downwards, not so much. That's your reason for the greenhouse effect, and no, this experiment isn't really going to show it. Nor does your comment invalidate it, because in both cases this highly relevant aspect is ignored.

[@deeveevideos]

@@EliteTeamKiller2.0 i think the biggest issue with the GHE is even with the math it shows the earth as a flat object and evenly heated. the earth is round and only half is heated at a time. it also states that some how it can continuously add heat even to the point that its hotter then the source heat input. also if CO2 is such a great insulator then it would reflect the sun more then letting it in, in turn making the world colder.

[@EliteTeamKiller2.0]

@@deeveevideos Your post is an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. (1) Using a flat earth for certain explorations is entirely justifiable. Just like you can assume spacetime is flat when it really isn't if the parameters being investigated are well behaved. (2) At no point has any planet's atmosphere ever been hotter than the sun (the source). Ever. And at no point has the science behind the greenhouse effect EVER stated that it could be hotter than the input source. Where did you even come up with that? Also, CO2 DOES reflect sunlight back into the sky (note: "reflect" isn't really what you think it is with molecules. They absorb energy and then emit energy). CLEARLY YOU DID NOT READ MY POST. CO2 emits radiation it absorbs IN ALL DIRECTIONS. That INCLUDES back toward space. The very reason it acts as an "insulator," as you put it, is because it emits radiation in all directions, rather than just back the way it came. Look, learn some physics before you think you know this stuff. I've solved heat equations (partial differential equations); I've derived the relevant equations of special relativity from scratch; I've explored tensor analysis; I've taken electromagnetism and classical mechanics, the upper division courses that utilize all the complex math of the turn of the century, from the calculus of variations to the use of tensors, complex analysis, etc. Unlike you I have a little bit of a relevant background. You, however, do not. How do I know you have zero background in physical science? Because you failed to understand the significance of a molecule emitting energy in all directions. Moreover, you failed to realize that the simple fact that the atmosphere nearer the surface is around 33 degrees hotter than it should be in a model where molecules emit back into space as much as they absorb is undeniable evidence that the greenhouse effect is real, and the type of molecules at different elevations play roles in why this occurs. Stop being a lazy fuck. Learn the actual science, including at least the fundamentals of the sophisticated math that the models are based on (this will take you several YEARS). Until you do at least that much, your opinion on the topic is worthless. Which means you hold FAR to high an opinion of your, well, opinion. Which is, again, the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display.

[@madbastard7152]

Unfortunately Increased pressure in the bottle means increased heat. The increased gas pressure enables more molecules to be excited and therefore more heat is trapped in a smaller area. You could do this experiment with oxygen and as long as the pressure was the same I believe the results would be very similar.

[@esajarvi2591]

It is not pressure. You can leave the stoppers off. Same result.

[@chuckbuxbaum4509]

www.brainpickings.org/2010/10/11/the-scale-of-the-universe/

[@louiscypher1001]

remember that the each bottle is radiating heat out at different rates based on the gas mix. both bottles started out at the SAME temperature before the light went on. When the light is on the temperatures rise untill they hit equilibrium with heat input.

[@gl4606]

@@louiscypher1001 but the alka seltzer is continuously releasing gas, increasing pressure?

[@JohnSmith-ik8nt]

@@esajarvi2591 you will get different results you probably wouldnt get results from either

[@wrath276]

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.

[@arnehofoss9109]

What you say is that this "experiment" has nothing to do with what happens in the Earths atmosphere? It is just showing that gasses act differently in a sealed bottle.

[@wrath276]

@@arnehofoss9109 Yes, I think it is obvious that the atmosphere cools the surface and distributes the Sun' s energy away from where the Sun is most intense to other parts of the globe. It is the same with oceans. At the equator the temperature near the surface is only 30C. You can take a paper cup if it is empty a flame will burn it, fill it with water and water absorbs the local heat and it does not. On the moon the peak temperature is 112C, there is no atmosphere or water to distribute the energy from a surface that is a poor conductor. Once the surface is at 112C it radiates as much energy away as it recieves, so no more energy is transferred from the Sun. As the surface on Earth never reaches a temperature at which it radiates in the daytime the energy it is receiving it absorbs more of the Sun's energy. As a result it will also take longer to cool at night. Hard to understand why it is claimed that the atmosphere warms the surface as much as the Sun, if this was the case the daytime temperatures would be higher, the warming is claimed to be a radiation effect and radiation is real time and travels close to the speed of light. Also climate science makes a lot of use of averages, which are meaningless in the context in which they are used. I guarantee that any recent climate event, flood, storm, heat, cold etc has a historical equivalent within the last 400 years when CO2 was not an issue. Just read old newspapers and journals.

[@languagetruthandlogic3556]

@@arnehofoss9109 Exactly !

[@adrianvance556]

That is the Hansen hypothesis, but look at any overnight temperature record and you will see a decline, not an increase as Hansen claims. His work was all deeply flawed.

[@languagetruthandlogic3556]

@@adrianvance556 Good call! It is the same with all the theoretical 'evidence' - there is no real life date to prove it. As you quote, the evidence is against Hansen's hypothesis. Sensible people know that none of this is science but merely a politically motivated scam. Have you watched Viscount Monckton's new Heartland Institute videos? Reality bites back. Keep safe!

[@Shanbo26]

For all you deniers saying "it's the pressure": Here's the ideal gas equation. PV=nRT Now, what he is doing is introducing more gas molecules (n) while holding volume constant(V). Look at the equation. P is on the other side of n, meaning that if n goes up, either P or V has to go up to compensate. SInce V is constant, P must climb. Done deal. But T is on the same side as n. Meaning that an increase in n would require T to DROP. Now, before he turns on the lamp, T is being pretty much held constant as well. Not that before he turns on the lamp, the T measures the same on both sides. This is to be expected because of conduction. So we can assume that the increased molarity is being compensated solely by increase in pressure. Which seems to be the case. So the system has reached a new stability, and n is constant in both bottles. This means that when he turns the light on, the only variant is T. Since V is held constant, the only way for the systems to compensate is to raise P - which in most certainly does. So, it is the temperature which is raising the pressure, and not the other way around. Idiots.

[@ziggy1ful]

An easier way for the idiots to understand this is tell them to go and increase the pressure in their car tyres(put some more air in), let the car sit for an hour(like in the experiment) and then see if the added pressure increases the temperature above that of the ambient., no it wont. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, some of them have done some science where PV/T = constant(only for the same number of molecules) and have walked away with the idea that temp is directly proportional to pressure in every circumstance

[@jonathanohara397]

Do you have a video showing that significant warming can be shown with a CO2 concentration of 400ppm vs. 300ppm? I don't think anyone would disagree that CO2 traps more heat than other gases. The main question in my mind is whether a .01% change in atmospheric CO2 would produce a noticeable shift in global temperature.

[@philipward196]

Hang on, it's not a 0.01% change in CO2 concentration: it's a 33% increase. If you accept that 300ppm CO2 is capable of trapping heat, then 400ppm is likely to trap significantly more.

[@jonathanohara397]

Philip Ward It's a 33% increase in CO2 concentration, but only a .01% change in atmospheric makeup. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. In fact, it's not the most prevalent or the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. In fact, water vapor is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas out there. Even with CO2 levels of zero, the planet would not freeze. Regardless, my initial comments are correct on the validity of this experiment. Find me an experiment which tests bottles at 300ppm CO2 and 400ppm CO2 and let me know if there's a significant difference in temperature between the two. Because this experiment takes normal air and pumps up the CO2 level hundreds of times higher than what we're seeing in the atmosphere.

[@philipward196]

Jonathan O'Hara Of course, this experiment doesn't replicate what happens in the atmosphere and I think the conditions are not properly controlled. It therefore does not show what it purports to show. But in requiring that a CO2 concentration of 400ppm be used, you are asking for an experiment where the light/IR radiation would have to travel through a path length of 60km, as it does in the atmosphere! The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is not independent of the CO2 concentration: the latter is a forcing variable, while water vapour concentration follows CO2 and others in a positive feedback. So while CO2 concentration may be "small" and its IR absorption bands narrow compared with water vapour, its effects are amplified.

[@jonathanohara397]

Philip Ward Requiring a concentration of 400ppm wouldn't require any other modifications to the experiment. It wouldn't be an accurate representation of our climate, but it would be useful to see if the addition of 100ppm of CO2 has any measurable effect on the air temperature inside the bottle. There's no disputing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Filling a container with a high volume of CO2, therefore, doesn't prove anything we don't already know. The question becomes whether such a small change in an already trace gas could have such a profound effect on temperature.

[@philipward196]

Jonathan O'Hara It's not always about proving anything we don't already know: a good scientific demo is useful as an educational tool. If this experiment was not confounded by inadequate control of variables, in particular that the water with bubbles in it would clearly absorb more radiation than the still water - and if it was shown to work when those confounding conditions were eliminated (which I think it doesn't - at least not convincingly), then it would be useful in a school. I've tried this experiment with dry CO2 vs. dry nitrogen and the former perhaps gives a 1 degree C higher temperature over a rise of about 20C in 20 minutes with 150W halogen lamps (5 litre bottle). If that is the difference you get with 100% CO2, then there's no way you could show a temperature difference at 300 or 400ppm CO2 - or between 300 and 400ppm - with a path length of 15 cm. One possibility is that the (PET) bottle itself is a good enough IR abosorber at the right wavelengths to swamp the difference that CO2 might make. The Royal Society of Chemistry has a similar experiment with no plastic barrier (Classic Chemistry Demonstrations, 1995 ed), for some reason using lead sheet as an absorber and there is a paper on a similar experiment in plastic trays. They also suggest doing it with CO2 in plastic bottles, but without water in the bottom (www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/wiki/index.php?title=TeacherExpt:The_Greenhouse_Effect&oldid=21044). In neither of these experiments do they say anything about moisture control and they do not differentiate between wet and dry sources of CO2.

[@SirIsaacMewtonIII]

this whole comments section reads as a chilling tale of what happens when children fail elementary school science and weren't held back a year or two, and are now adults and are somehow allowed to comment on the simplest of experiments. could be titled: "the failings of the american education system: case studies in rampant idiocy".

[@RScottLaMorte]

It's so depressing.

[@Fastbikkel]

But intelligence does not guarantee they will have a good view on these things either. I have met several people with great educations, real intelligent and some of them are oblivious to what is happening here. The somehow switch away from their intelligence and hold on to dubious "science". I think some of them are just not interested in climate issues because they want to hold on to their polluting behavior. Or they are just scared of the reality and stick their heads in the sand.

[@danielrood264]

He is not accounting for the heat generated from the Alka Seltzer tablets (the citric acid and sodium bicarbonate create an exothermic reaction) as well as the increase in pressure as the CO2 is generated within the closed container. From high school thermodynamics PV=nRT so as the pressure in a system increases the temperature increases as well (assuming a constant volume of course).

[@stauffap]

That's wrong. I'm afraid, that i must tell you, that you do not use this formula the right way. When you increase the pressure in that bottle, you do so by adding gas molecules(n increases). Without the CO2 and the lamp the temperature T in the bottle would stay the same, since the bottle would be in thermal equilibrium with its surrounding. You're right that an increase in pressure would lead to a rise in temperature but that's only for adiabtic systems(a system that can't exchange heat energy with its surrounding). You'd have to use another forumla for adiabatic systems. Now, this system clearly does exchange heat with its surrounding so the adiabatic formula does not apply here. You can apply pV=nRT but like i said T must stay the same. If what you claimed was true, then the temperature in the bottle would also have to rise without the lamp. But as i explained, this can't be the case, when the bottle is able to exchange heat energy with its surrounding(it's a non adiabatic system). I work with this formula every week, so don't even think that you're dealing with an amateur, when it comes to this type of physics. If you think that i'm wrong, then solve some physics exercises related to the use of this formula, before you consider trying to "prove" me wrong. I'd appreciate that.

[@bananian]

stau ffap Wow, I wish my professor could explain thermodynamics this well.

[@samlair3342]

The demonstration is to, indeed, simply show that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It’s a crude but effective way of showing that it is. There are more sophisticated experiments to finesse the quantitative measurements, but that’s beyond the purview or budget of a public school science teacher.

[@johnSmith-my9yj]

The problem is that the difference in temperature due to absorption of IR radiation by CO2 would be much smaller, the only likely explanation for his results is that the bottles don't receive the same amount of heat from the lamp. IR absorption by CO2 is not so easy to demonstrate, because in most setups the resulting temperature will depend more on CO2's lower thermal conductivity (less heat is lost to the environment) than on the amount of radiation absorbed. CO2 mainly absorbs long-wave IR, and most demonstrations use high temperature heat sources that radiate mainly short wave IR. With a heat lamp the amount absorbed may be around 2%, with an incandescent lamp (meant for visible light) it will be less. Assuming the IR isn't absorbed before it reaches the gas (like in this demo, PET plastic absorbs a lot of IR, in fact, IR heating is used in industry to melt PET).

[@RScottLaMorte]

Energy only does three things when it strikes an object - it transmits, absorbs with re-emis, or reflects. And often it does a bit of all three. Thermal conductivity is a function of absorption. It's the time between absorbing radiation and re-emitting it. And it's a valid contributor to the greenhouse effect of CO2.

[@badlove7435]

That's nice. Now try to do the same experiment by simply doubling the volume of CO2 in the air in the container. 400 ppm is 1 part per 2500. Not sure how many alka-seltzer tablets that equates to, but I am sure that it is such a small fraction of a tablet that you wouldn't even be able to measure and cut it with the simple material you seem to have at hand.

[@wade5941]

+badlove Great minds think alike.

[@SirIsaacMewtonIII]

​@@wade5941 more like idiots are dumb, and failed junior high.

[@RScottLaMorte]

The temperature increase would scale with the CO2 concentration. A relatively small addition of CO2 would show a relatively small increase in temp.

[@5Cats]

@@RScottLaMorte Since this simulation produced 400,000ppm for its difference? a difference of 200x less would produce a LOT lower difference in temps at the end. Also keeping both pressures (density!) the same is essential. More dense air will absorb more heat than less dense air, easily.

[@5Cats]

Those 4 tablets hold about 400,000ppm worth of CO2 in that 1 liter of air, so 2000ppm added would be 4 tablets / 200... 1/50th of a tablet. Not "immeasurable" but it would in no way produce a result like this. :/

[@WinstonSmith6]

You are dramatically increasing the barometric pressure by using Alka-Seltzer and sealing the bottle. If you pump air into the other bottle it would have almost the same affect.

[@RScottLaMorte]

This is very easy to test, thanks! Take a sealed 2 liter bottle of soda. Bang it around hard. It's now pressurized; if you open it, it will shoot all over. Feel the bottle. Did it raise 10° in temperature?

[@5Cats]

@@RScottLaMorte You keep repeating this lie, no one replies because it is transparently stupid. Know how an A/C works? Increase pressure = temp of fluid rises. Lower pressure = temp of fluid drops. Period.

[@silvercomic]

@@5Cats Then do the experiment and shut him up.

[@RScottLaMorte]

@@5Cats I don't want you to believe me. I want you to try this for yourself. Have you measured the temperature of a pressurized bottle of soda yet?

[@5Cats]

@@silvercomic His "experiment" is a joke. The temperature will increase, but by so little you'd need a lab-grade sensor to read it. Air conditioners: they work by pressure. Increase the fluid pressure? It gets hotter. Decrease the fluid pressure? It gets cooler. Simple proof.

[@tshawtshi3040]

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.

[@richardrogers2110]

Same intensity as the sun? That would be quite an interesting experiment.

[@AltcoinIgnition]

@@richardrogers2110 This comment is pure gold.

[@adrianvance]

This demo does not relate to nature. It is rigged.

[@EM-ig7ib]

LOL.... Did you ever try to teach a mongrel dog algebra? Expect similar results if you attempt to educate these folks.

[@EM-ig7ib]

@@richardrogers2110 The intensity of the Sun at ground level and within the Earths atmosphere is easily duplicated by several different bulbs that are readily available to the general public (HPS/Metal Halides etc. etc) It is probably more difficult to duplicate the exact light spectrum of the sun but you can get close. How do you think tanning beds and indoor hydroponics are possible? One thing is for sure . . People making fun of Tshaws comment are not the brightest lights in the house. smh...

[@stevenjohnson4283]

I'm not the only one to say this on this thread, but the tablets are releasing the gas, and once sealed will increase air pressure in the bottle, which in turn increases temperature. Its like when you turbo charge a car. Air that is compressed becomes hotter, and that is why turbo charged cars use inter-coolers to cool the intake air charge. Which is why in weather forecasts high air pressure leads to hotter days, and areas of low air pressure are cooler days.

[@grindupBaker]

Correct theory but negligible here, not even measurable, because of the experiment duration of 55 minutes. The increase in air pressure in the bottle increases temperature instantly so the air molecules are jammed together more and moving faster, more impacts, and the thermometer warms by whatever amount from this over time as it picks up the heat. However, the thermal capacity of the water is ~4,500x the thermal capacity of the air so each tiny 0.028 mm thick water film near the surface matches the heat capacity in the ~125 mm air column. The water rapidly cools the air from any warming that happened from increased pressure but the opposite happened in this experiment and the air warmed. It's unrelated to pressure increase. Experiment would have been better with a photo of temperature screen each minute for 55 minutes.

[@outforbeer]

anyone know of a similar lab experiment to this with better controls? This one has too many problems

[@privatear2001]

Why, yes i do! This experiment was conducted to try to replicate the results gotten by Bill Nye in one of his "simple" experiments to prove CO2 causes air to get hotter in a closed environment. He went out of his way to use the same equipment, but he could not reproduce the results. He even presents the original Bill Nye experiment and shows how he thinks it was manipulated to achieve the ends he did. Take a look: wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

[@chuckbuxbaum4509]

www.brainpickings.org/2010/10/11/the-scale-of-the-universe/ A more realistic scale simulation of Earth's Anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

[@thirstyboots6205]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKGbqnRmbrimqrs

[@TheMrSirCharles]

@@privatear2001 Of course the old liar Anthony Watts 🙄 www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

[@ncdave4life]

​@@thirstyboots6205, that's in Norwegian. Do you know of something in English?

[@kailee2413]

The experiment is not controlled. When alka seltzer reacts with water, is it an exothermic reaction? When thre are bubbles in the water. Will it affect the way heat uis absorbed ? If we simply fill up the empty space with CO2 instead of using alka seltzer it may make more sense.

[@Warzoooooo]

What could also have been included would be the CO2 ppm in each bottle, just to give an understanding of how much of CO2 it take to make that huge difference. I guess the bottle without extra addad CO2 probably have 440 ppm (athmosphere + a little extra from beeing indoor) but i have no idea about the other bottle... if I had to guess i'd guess at least 50-100 times higher

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

Indeed. Of course the other thing they fail to mention is that greenhouses heat up quite nicely without adding CO2 to the atmosphere within which is just regular air.

[@cacadriv]

Why not show what happens if you turn the light/IR source off for 1h?

[@stevewilson4321]

@@arnesaknussemm2427 You really didnt understand this at all...

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

@@stevewilson4321 really? Now why don’t you explain what it is I don’t understand . Looking forward to your reply.

[@stevewilson4321]

@@arnesaknussemm2427 Ok fine 1st off this is a DEMO not an EXPERIMENT, big difference...Yes a greenhouse heats up without CO2 because the air is heated by the sun and has no where to go... Yet that same greenhouse with addition of CO2 is going to heat up to a temp higher than one with just pure air... The whole pt of this was to show this and thats why he has a control of just room air! The one with added CO2 got a lot warmer because the CO2 absorbed bands of the lamps energy and turned that into heat by increased molecular motion which is what heat is... Its a proof of a concept NOT an experiment....

[@snnwstt]

Fact #1: a gaz raises its temperature faster than a liquid. Fact #2: temperature is an average. Fact #3: from fact 2 and 1, a liquid with tons of dissolved gaz in it will raise its temperature faster than the same liquid without dissolved gaz it in. So, the experimentation confirms fact #3, but that does not prove that the CO2 is the only gaz which can do that. Try with Nitrogen (N2) dissolved in water, or Oxygen (O2), or the air mixture dissolved in water, and will get fact #3 confirmed AGAIN. If you are not careful and have, for illustration, 10% of CO2 in one experimentation, and 40% of dissolver air mixture in another experiment, you could conclude that mixture with air raises its temperature faster than the mixture with CO2!

[@TheMrSirCharles]

O2 and N2 are not heat trapping. You need at least a third atom in the molecule. history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm

[@douglasmackenzie3566]

Aaarghhh!!! One bottle closer to the lamp by a couple of millimetres has more effect than whether there is pure nitrogen or pure CO2 in the bottle.

[@yellowheadamateurradioassn7302]

How about simulating the affect of cooling, when the sun isn't shining on one side. Also, the Black Body effect would say that as the temperature rises, so does the radiation of energy leaving the bottle.

[@RDarkhill]

@Hop Guild Perhaps you could run it yourself, properly?

[@RDarkhill]

@Hop Guild Should I run the experiment then?

[@RDarkhill]

@Hop Guild Would you like to watch my experiment if I made a video?

[@5Cats]

@@RDarkhill Sure, but do account for all the variables, like this one has: wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/ I'd be delighted to see it! Because it would show just how terrible this video is.

[@samlair3342]

For those concerned about the use of closed bottles and related variables such as pressure, watch the KZbin video entitled: “Greenhouse in a Beaker: In the Greenhouse #2”

[@samlair3342]

Also, “Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2” kzbin.info/www/bejne/haWYn2yjadybl9k [Note: The above video about infrared absorption is, also, imbedded in the following excellent video about water vapor as a greenhouse gas (at the 4 minute mark): kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJXLn5uho8Z9hck

[@gaetano98]

what about the kinetic energy variable? The effervescent is causing an excited state in one bottle but not the other. shouldn't you create a kinetic energy in the other to cancel out the possibility that the average kinetic energy is not increasing the temperature of the atmosphere in that area?

[@suburbanhobbyist2752]

Now do the experiment again, but this time add only the tiniest little sliver of the alka seltzer, like a grain of salt, instead of the entire tab. If you want to simulate what human's contribution would be then do it with one grain of salt (alka seltzer) vs 2 grains of alka seltzer (the extra grain would be the human part). What?? No measurable difference in temperature because the CO2 level is too miniscule to have an effect? Yeah, that would be a real world simulation. If we are being honest, even a grain of salt size would be too much for a real world comparison.

[@osopolarmovies]

I would like to see 0,04% CO2 in one bottle and 2% water vapor in the other. Difficult to perform, but it would prove that H2O is a ”stronger” greenhouse gas than CO2. I really like CO2 because it makes our planet greener.

[@MassageWithKlay]

don't let people know that .. they'll then tax us on water ... oh wait never mind, they already do :D

[@flyesouisi]

has anyone built 2 identical greenhouses about 20 meters apart, left one with normal air and double the atmospheric co2 in the other? Then test temperatures within them each day? I know nighttime will tend to level temperatures but if suitable insulation is used perhaps we could give not only a practical demo of co2 in the field, but actually useful quantitative data.

[@adrianvance556]

Such greenhouses exist in Germany and Holland as they produce 30% to 50% more product in terms of pounds of flowers or fruit, etc. They increase the CO2 to about 1000 parts/million and have no high temperature problems. See the literature on these greenhouses as there is much to read.

[@aWitty]

This is an excellent example of "Climate science".

[@RScottLaMorte]

Not at all. It's excellent example of the greenhouse properties of CO2 and nothing more. It's also super easy for you to repeat at home.

[@entyropy3262]

@@RScottLaMorte It's also super easy to stick the bottle up your butt to prove climate change.........

[@wernerhartl2069]

If you let it sit, it will go back to its original temperature. The sun goes out at night. Of more interest would be how fast it cools. If it absorbs heat faster it will also emit heat faster.

[@grindupBaker]

"If it absorbs heat faster it will also emit heat faster". That is correct.

[@grindupBaker]

It simply indicates that a CO2 molecule absorbs some radiation which causes it to vibrate and when it hits another molecule, which it does 1,700,000,000 times / second, that vibration "kicks" the 2 molecules and speeds them up. This is measured as "temperature" how fast and how often the molecules are smacking into the thermometer molecules and jiggling them harder. If they could smack the thermometer molecules hard enough they'd rip them clean off and this is called "vaporizing the glass of a thermometer". Shit-simple, obvious stuff. ---------------- It doesn't prove the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere because that would need expensive equipment of special design including a centrifuge to make gravity and some other very-specially-designed equipment. This is because if air in the troposphere stayed the exact same temperature from surface to top like you take a balloon instrument on a wire so's it can only rise straight up and you measure 23.4 degrees at the surface and the same all the way up to 12,000 metres, then there couldn't be any "greenhouse effect" at all there even if it was jam-packed with "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" because it's actually the GHGs and clouds that radiate 92% of Earth's radiation to space and only 8% from the surface, so obviously if the troposphere temperature didn't change then the GHGs and clouds would radiate the same amount from the top as they would have radiated from the bottom if there weren't any more GHGs and clouds above them. Not as shit-simple and obvious as the 1st part above but still very simple indeed and completely obvious in an instant (well, simple indeed obvious to me at least).

[@ufewl]

lol the lamp is only pointing at the CO2 bottle!!! Look it light up like a Christmas tree!!

[@philipward196]

There is something to your argument, but it is not because the light is pointing at the CO2 bottle. That bottle looks brighter because it is reflecting more light, due to the presence of bubbles in the water. I think it is probably absorbing more and re-radiating in the IR as well, rather than transmitting light as the non-CO2 bottle is, so this experiment is not a good demonstration of the greenhouse effect.

[@TheMrSirCharles]

Why don't you go and repeat the test yourself and record it?

[@HarasLiveProductions]

Is it possible to add 0.04% CO2 and then measure the difference?

[@iviewthetube]

Was the chemical reaction of the Alka-Seltzer mixing with water endothermic or exothermic?

[@ncdave4life]

I just googled it. The reaction is apparently sodium bicarbonate and anhydrous citric acid. I think that reaction should be endothermic, but I'd still like to see a "control run" with dim lighting and no heat lamp. This looks like a pretty well-done experiment, to me. But I'd also like to see a "control run" with the the Alka Seltzer allowed to finish fizzing, and the CO2 to dissipate, before sealing the two bottles, to see if the water contamination has an effect. I'd also like to see some indication that the bottles weren't so tightly sealed that the pressures were different. I'd also like to see the experiment repeated with the positions of the two bottles swapped. Incandescent bulbs frequently have their filaments off-center, so it is by no means certain that the two bottles were exposed to identical light intensities.

[@RScottLaMorte]

Toss four Alka-Seltzer in a mug and hold it in your hands. Did it heat up ten degrees?

[@HeyChickens]

@@ncdave4life Only thing is that the heat lamp simulates the sun, so if you don't use that you will not see any significant difference at all. Co2 keeps earth warm at night because earth is so much warmer than outer space, so co2 is able to slow down that heat transfer. With a bottle inside of a house, there is very little temperature difference between the bottle and the room, so there would be no heat transfer for the co2 to slow down. Thats why you need the heat lamp.

[@ncdave4life]

​@@HeyChickens, CO2 absorbs mainly between about 14 µm and 16 µm. The reason it's a GHG is that that's near the peak of the Earth's emission spectrum. But the spectral peak from a heat lamp is much, much shorter than that, probably less than 1 µm for a typical heat lamp. So a heat lamp is a poor proxy for that terrestrial radiation.

[@HeyChickens]

@@ncdave4life Very good point.

[@SciCad]

It would be more scientific to keep your responses direct, without ad hominum attacks (name calling). There needs to be a third bottle with co2 and a fourth with air that are kept in the dark. This demonstration doesn't account for either the build up in pressure or the heat of the dissolution of the tablet in the h2o. It would be even better if: 1. The concentration of co2 in the co2 bottle were actually measured; 2. Another 2 bottles were used that had the AD1750 concentrations of co2 in air.

[@Surfrdude05]

The optical resistivity of the PETE has increased due to the condensation of the alkaselzer being added to the water, you can clearly see it has become opaque. The IR would scatter including the energy and would remain inside the bottle therefore trapping the energy. The bottle on the right would let nearly all of the IR pass through as proven by the probes. Thermodynamics 101. This would be useful if we had a giant PETE dome around us ;P

[@stevewilson4321]

LOL, the optical resistivity blah blah... ahhh No there is no " optical resistivity " its called condensation of water on to a water bottle... Nor is the IR trapped into to anything.. Its light... It goes thru a clear bottle... where you high when you wrote it ?

[@culeigh]

Also, it's correct to point out that the reaction releases a little heat, and also the increase in pressure will increase the temperature, this effect only lasts as long as the reaction is happening. An hour after the reaction stops, all that extra heat should have dissipated.

[@samuelparent-vezina5665]

no PV= nRT, the pressure goes up become n goes up

[@esajarvi2591]

All the heat from the tablets ends up heating the water. You could cool both bottles in ice baths and get the same result.

[@grindupBaker]

Erik could ask the commenters to do the science & math of chemical heat and how much that would heat the water but since they are too lazy and don't have the mental equipment he could suggest they simply repeat the Alka-Seltzer experiment with no heat lamp but everything else the same and compare the temperature rise caused in 55 minutes with the heat lamp one. Duh. Does our species deserve to survive ?

[@superduperstuff7057]

One more thing, because each alka selzer produces 16ml of CO2, you'd need to have added 1/40th of a tab, not 4 tabs to simulate a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

[@grindupBaker]

A laboratory experiment CANNOT replicate the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere because .... the laboratory equipment has no tropospheric temperature lapse rate and emission moving up or down the lapse rate profile is what causes "greenhouse effect" warming, or cooling for the reverse changes occurring. A laboratory experiment, correctly performed, can prove (or disprove) that a certain gas or gas mixture absorbs & emits radiation more than some other gas or gas mixture (needed in Earth's troposphere for a gas to assist cloud water, ice & aerosol solids in setting a certain quantity of "greenhouse effect").

[@kevinoneill8634]

Just a thought, If the carbon dioxide released was increasing the pressure in the soda bottle (as he said the stopper was fitted tightly at the top) using the equation pV=nrT wouldn't that heat up the water anyway? This wouldn't be a property of the atmosphere as an increase in pressure would just mean more air would leave the atmosphere.

[@femsplainer]

+Kevin O'Neill The amount of pressure increase would be relatively minimal,. A better experiment would be to have soda bottles and squeeze out all of the 'air' in them, then seal them, then shake them to break express the CO2 from the liquid. You would have one soda bottle with flat soda and air as the control. Also, increases in pressure does not cause very much additional gases to escape into outer space. The atmosphere is already subject to high and low pressure zones (watch more weather channel) that cause the movement of weather patterns. In addition there is greater air density and atmospheric pressure as you go from higher altitudes to sea level.

[@erickalosa-kenyon5863]

Hmm, I'm not convinced. This experiment needs replication, a mechanistic explanation, and better controlled pressure. Would not pass peer review just yet. Also, could you further explain how atmospheric temperature fluctuations refute O'Neill's PV=NRT argument?

[@femsplainer]

Eric K Replication- The point of the experiment as shown is that anyone can replicate it quite easily. I myself remember a similar experiment done in my high school biology class. Mechanical explanation- CO2 is better at containing heat than ambient air, which is observed in this experiment. This is observed in the experiment as the only two variables in this situation are the gas composition within the bottle, and a very slight difference in pressure. Greenhouses also prove this point quite well as they tend to be at ~1300ppm CO2 for best growth results as compared to the ~340ppm ambient CO2 in the atmosphere. When you step into a greenhouse, you immediately notice the temperature change, part of this is due to increased humidity in most areas, but if you live in a place like Texas where you can have 100% humidity, then this is no longer a factor and the greenhouse is still warmer than the outside.. Pressure- To better control the pressure variable, you could easily insert a pressure gauge into both soda bottles (the flat and carbonated one that you will shake). First you would seal the flat soda bottle and record it's pressure and temperature. Then you would shake the evacuated (evacuated by squeezing out all the air then sealing it prior to shaking) carbonated soda to release CO2 to fill the volume of the container. Finally you would equalize the pressure of the two bottles by slowly venting the carbonated soda until it reaches the same pressure as the flat one. Once the temperatures were normalized and the pressures equalized, then you could begin the heating test. If you still think the ambient pressure in the carbonated container is having an effect, you could continue to shake the container and vent it until it went flat at the same pressure as the flat soda. "Also, could you further explain how atmospheric temperature fluctuations refute O'Neill's PV=NRT argument?" I never said anything about atmospheric temperature. What I said is that atmospheric PRESSURE changes from sea level to mountainous areas (where I currently live) and that even these severe changes (when compared to the pressure changes in the bottles) in atmospheric pressure, have little effect on the PV=nRT equation. Furthermore, the ideal gas law gets messed up a bit by having liquids in with the gas, as it can cause some of the gas to dissolve into the liquid similar to the process of carbonation, so it really doesn't apply well here.

[@imaweerascal]

Any pressure-related temperature increase would a) be small, and b) happen fairly immediately. Whereas the temperature difference between the bottles only happened after a long period of irradiation.

[@xYondaimexJD]

This science is utter garbage. And even funnier that ppl here can claim that popping in 4 alka-seltzer tablets will not affect the internal pressure. Nevermind the fact that over 50% of each tablet is made up of sodium bicarbonate which would have close to doubled the moles of gas inside. This is a much better experiment. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKHMaJmvjaqUl5o

[@howardrichoux7345]

I agree with most of the comments that there are flaws in this "experiment". It would be so simple to do a much better version, that I am sure it has been done already. Can someone provide links to better data?

[@privatear2001]

I don't know about links to better data, but this guy tried to do the experiment with the same equipment that Bill Nye used in his video and couldn't make it work. wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

[@bianchiviolin]

No commentator below seems to have been taken in by this nonsense, thank goodness.

[@jaimetoro2773]

He is not measuring the greenhouse effect. He is measuring how much water there is in each bottle. If you look carefully, you will notice that the water level is about 1 cm higher on the CO2 side. That bottle absorbs more heat because it has more mass. Everything else is a red herring. But even if he had carefully measured the water, he would get funky results because it is really difficult to place the bottles in a way that they are evenly irradiated. The greenhouse effect is too small to be seen this way. You need an IR spectrometer.

[@corralesderabago]

The bottle with the light directly shining on it is always gonna be warmer.

[@WastedElephant]

For second experiment, we will put both bottles in separate ovens, the oven with the co2 bottle will be set to 500 degrees and the other oven will remain turned off... let's see which gets hotter 😏

[@MatthewEng2593]

For all those saying pressure in the bottle is causing the temperature increase, it's simple to test this. Just run the experiment without the light and see if you get temperature change. - you won't

[@justinolson9502]

Because there is a rubber stopper on top of the bottle u have a build up of pressure, the particals are closer together and can then absorb more heat. U need more analogies like methane,oxygen nitrogen and carbon dioxide. We all know methane and water vaper are green house gasses. Still a skeptic about carbon dioxide though, as it seems to have political implications.

[@blocbonbon]

Ok, so you add a pressure meter and you would still see the same effect. CO2 doesn´t care about politics...

[@krecikowi]

It looks like that bottle one have more light... this "experiment" is pure BS...

[@alexiarubinton1734]

Do it at home yourself.

[@rylansteinkey5779]

its pointed at the middle, its just that the light reflects off the left bottle into the camera where as the light reflecting off the right bottle doesnt reflect towards the camera.

[@pfaurs]

That's due to differences in reflection due to differences in angle of camera with respect to the bottle and the light. Can't you see that the light is the same distance away from both bottles? Try it yourself at home. Geez!

[@ksnow34]

This experiment is not repeatable using good experimental procedures. If pressure is allowed to dissipate by loosening the cap as the alka-seltzer fizzes, and the lamp is not unbalanced (as it is clearly in this video), then the temperature remains the same in both bottles. I was very skeptical, so I set it up for myself. I won't bore you with a 4 minute video of "no difference"

[@kalieromero]

No video no proof... If your claim is true it's probably worth the 4 minutes of time to prove it.

[@MassageWithKlay]

that's what I've come to the conclusion of .. and it's not a hard thing to understand .. water heats up faster under pressure. This is why a pressure cooker will heat water faster than an open pot. There is a reason why this experiment was done over 55 minutes, Carbon Dioxide does not need 55 minutes to be able to absorb and release infra red. It's done at the rate of it's own frequency. Which from what I read is wavelengths of 2.5, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. So it only picks up a minute amount of the infrared spectrum which is measured between 700 nano meters and 1mm, and by the law of thermodynamics would only be able to "hold it" for that split millisecond after the source is removed before the heat is released. Hmmm interesting aspect

[@hyzercreek]

This experiment answers the wrong question. He addresses the question "Does CO2 absorb infrared" when he should be addressing the question "Does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cause increased absorption of infrared by the atmosphere." The experiment is set up wrong, because the elevation of extinction (of 15 micron IR by CO2) in the atmosphere is around 200 meters. His bottles would have to be 200 meters thick to answer that question experimentally.

[@arkie87]

hyzercreek The elevation of extinction is a function of CO2 concentration and pressure; presumably, both the pressure and concentration of CO2 in that bottle is higher than ambient, so it might be a good qualitative experiment (definitely not quantitative though)

[@hyzercreek]

I would rather make the CO2 ambient and measure it directly. Keep all variables the same.

[@arkie87]

hyzercreek ambient concentration or ambient pressure at 1,000,000 ppm concentration i.e. 100% co2?

[@hyzercreek]

Air. Use air.

[@arkie87]

hyzercreek then how to demonstrate greenhouse effect of CO2?

[@thales9441]

Right, glad we've finally settled that one. Let's all try to cool the earth before it is too late. I'll make a start by opening my freezer door.

[@andyspark5192]

+Thales very funny

[@Bdad1987]

This oversimplification of earth's dynamics is dangerous in that people might actually believe it has any scientific basis relative to anthropogenic climate change.

[@Stethacanthus]

Jeffrey Grant we know that CO2 is more or less Earth’s thermostat. You are right to say this doesn’t prove that climate change is anthropogenic, but it does demonstrate the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. You need that point as part of the synthesis that is our understanding of climate change and the role humans have in it.

[@samlair3342]

If the greenhouse effect truly blankets infrared radiation (heat) and the various greenhouse gases are increasing, is not anthropogenic global warming s reasonable premise?

[@arnehofoss9109]

@@Stethacanthus Wrong. Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas. And the earth has been warmer in the last 10 000 years than now! Doubling Co2 from 400ppm to 800ppm would not increase the temperature. kzbin.info/www/bejne/poiUZ399i7WZf8U

[@Stethacanthus]

@@arnehofoss9109 alright, first off, Tony Heller is a hack but let's focus on the argument *you* want to make. The Earth overall was cooler during the medieval warming period. If you cherry pick a couple measurements from only the northern hemisphere and ignore the rest of the planet at the time, you can pretend it was warmer than today, but that isn't true. Also, we know what caused that warming. We had abnormally high volcanic activity (CO2 output) and abnormally high solar irradiance (which has been on a downward trend since he 1980's). Climate change is proven as well as science can prove just about anything. Whether or not human civilization can adapt is debatable.

[@kazimierzsokolowski7810]

How can you have a greenhouse effect with out a container? This is common scene, witch you have none.

[@operator6471]

How many ppm of co2 in the bottle with the tablets?

[@lundqvjrl9359]

In all fairness would not the bubbles in the co2 bottle be enough to trap more of the light/heat giving you the difference? Like mini greenhouse within a greenhouse?

[@weekdays206]

Hey Eric, i have noticed in the results part of the video that indicates red is for CO2, am i right? But why does the temperature is lower in red than blue during the middle part of this vid?

[@adrianvance]

You got it. That is exactly what happens! Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the air temperature! See "CO2 Is Innocent" at ScienceFrauds.blogspot.com It's all there...

[@teio748]

Thanks for the video!! Have a nice day!!

[@milespostlethwaite1154]

This demonstrates the basic greenhouse where CO2 absorbs infra red radiation up to a point. However, what happens in the atmosphere is a lot more complicated.

[@5Cats]

Of course NO mention of the CO2 ppm in the bottle! 1 liter of air, 1.225 grams. There's 0.121 grams of CO2 in each tablet, so 0.484 grams of CO2. That's... 39.5% or roughly 400,000 ppm. What a crock of crap. Even if the water absorbs half? That's still 200,000ppm to produce a small difference in temperature rise. Garbage.

[@yellowheadamateurradioassn7302]

Very valid question. The temperature effect is known to be logarithmic; ie, if the increase in the concentration of Co2 from 200 ppm to 400 ppm raises the temp by 1 degree, it will take an increase from 400 ppm to 800 ppm to raise it another degree. Also, as the concentration of Co2 rises in the air, the law of equilibrium will increase the absorption rate of Co2 into the water which will have a counterbalancing effect, and that is under ideal conditions, with all other variables held constant, which is certainly not the case in the real world.

[@5Cats]

@@yellowheadamateurradioassn7302 Right! Logarithmic. Something not one Alarmist has put into his 'models' I'd wager. An inconvenient fact. Of course over 200,000ppm is simply never going to happen, but that's what this experiment 'simulates'.

[@trafalgarla]

You don't know what you're talking about. The percentage of CO2 doesn't matter, it's the absolute number of molecules that matters. If you shine 100 IR photons through the bottle and add only CO2 until 50 IR photons are absorbed, you'd have a 100% CO2 atmosphere in the bottle that absorbs half the incoming radiation. If you then add O2 to the bottle until it's 50% CO2 and 50% O2, you would still only absorb 50 IR photons since O2 is transparent to IR light.

[@trafalgarla]

@@5Cats "Right! Logarithmic. Something not one Alarmist has put into his 'models' I'd wager." Uh literally every climate scientist knows the temperature effect of CO2 is logarithmic which is why they talk about the doubling of CO2. And doubling CO2 causes a 3 degree C rise in temperature (Yellowhead said 1 degree but that is completely wrong.)

[@5Cats]

@@trafalgarla No. That is all. Sorry. Goodbye.

[@paulbrown7872]

Everyone knows a large concentration of CO2 will cause warming. What we really need to know, and no one seems to want to run the experiment, is the temperature difference (if any) between a container with 280ppm CO2 (as per the earth's atmosphere before the industrial revolution) and another with 415ppm (as per today). I strongly suspect the difference will be negligible.

[@nxgrs74]

Watch out, here comes some actual applied science, i.e. engineering! A 2-liter plastic bottle half full of water leaves room in the other half for 1 liter of a) CO2, b) Air. A cc is 1E-6 m^3 so a liter aka 1,000 cc is 1E -3 m^3. The density of CO2 is 1.977 kg/km^3 so there are 0.0020 kg of CO2 in the half bottle. (1.977 * 1E-3) The density of air is 1.208 kg/km^2 so there are 0.0012 kg of air in the half bottle. (1.208 * 1E-3) (That’s why CO2 vapor sinks to the floor, it’s heavier.) The specific heat capacity of CO2 is 0.849 kJ/kg-C. The specific heat capacity of air is 1.006 kJ/kg-C. The half bottle of CO2 began at 20.2 C and ended at 44.0 C for a rise of 23.8 C absorbing 40.4 J of energy. (0.849 * 0.0020 * 23.8) The half bottle of air began at 20.5 C and ended at 35.10 C for a rise of 14.6 C absorbing 17.7 J of energy. (1.006 * 1.208 * 17.7) It appears that the heat from the bulb is not uniform and is skewed towards the CO2 bottle. Nice deceptive parlor trick. Intentional? I don’t think the amateurs that crafted this experiment are that smart. A better design would be to fabricate a fixture with the bottle at one end, the bulb at the other and a reflective enclosure so all of the radiant energy arrives at the bottle. Place the CO2 bottle and record temperature every 5 minutes for an hour. Insert the air bottle and record every 5 minutes for an hour. Of course, this is moot. The point of this experiment is to demonstrate/prove how the atmosphere and man’s evil CO2 pollution warms the earth. That does not happen. Because the albedo (which only exists because of the atmosphere) reflects 30% of the incoming solar radiation, the earth is cooler not warmer. Remove the atmosphere and albedo and the naked, barren, blazing hot lit side, deep cold dark, (like the moon) earth receives 25% to 40% more energy and obviously gets warmer blowing the greenhouse effect right out of the water. No RGHE, no GHG warming, no man caused climate change.

[@burgesspark685]

Nick - great to see some actual science applied to this Alarmists will swallow any garbage as long its masquerading as "science"

[@gamalielisaac1749]

There is a problem with this experiment. Notice how one bottle is white once the alkaseltzer tablets are added and how one is clear. That's probably because the bubbles pushed the water up the sides and deposited the alkaseltzer. That white material may be heating up when exposed to light. The best way to do this experiment would be to find a way to make both bottles clear.

[@grindupBaker]

A lady does a better one (inside a greenhouse for fun) where she makes the CO2 in another bottle and feeds it through before starting.

[@emsnewssupkis6453]

It is obvious that the BUBBLE ACTION is causing the CO2 bottle to refract much, much more light than the bottle with no bubbles. When light bounces off of many tiny 'mirrors' this way, it heats up the water more than still water with no bubbles. The fact that this entire 'experiment' ignores the issue of shining light on bubbles shows the shallowness of the intellectual game here, this is why the light shining back onto the shiny table surface shows virtually no light reflected from the pure bottle while the one with the pills is brilliantly lit up like VENUS which is mostly CO2 atmosphere and totally cloudy.

[@notavipjustap]

It's the same as standing in the sun or standing in the sun surrounded by mirrors all around you.

[@samlair3342]

Get a clear soda bottle, put in the same amount of water, pop in the tablets and cap it. See how long bubbles remain. Use a strong magnifying glass as an assist. The demonstration lasted almost an hour.

[@RScottLaMorte]

Light reflecting off the bottle would lower the temperature, not raise it. High reflectivity (albedo) lowers absorption. We know the light energy is reflecting away from the bottle because we can see it. If the light was trapped inside the bottle it would not be escaping and we wouldn't see it.

[@notavipjustap]

@@RScottLaMorte The light is not reflecting off the bottle, it is reflecting off the bubbles INSIDE the bottle. If you cannot tell what is happening just by looking at this fraudulent experiment then you deserved to be duped. Go put a thermometer in the sun and then put another one in the sun and surround it with mirrors pointing at it, let me know what you find out.

[@bretth4988]

Cross examination. Current Earth's C02 is 0.41% as yr control bottle. Can you tell me what concentration of C02 that was. So 1 tablet or even 2 didn't give you the results you needed?

[@RScottLaMorte]

A sealed bottle of carbonated water will only release trace CO2. This is why a bottle of coke doesn't go flat. But this experiment was only designed to prove CO2 has a greenhouse effect. It's not meant to simulate Earth's atmosphere in any meaningful way.

[@5Cats]

It was roughly 200,000 ppm in the CO2 bottle, each tablet releases a huge amount of CO2 since converting mass to gas = a huge volume. This "experiment is so filled with fatal flaws it would be funny if so many people didn't think it was accurate :x

[@piobrick]

Erik, I tried to replicate your results and was unsuccessful. I used the same equipment except that I used analog thermometers instead of digital. Absolutely no difference in temperature. Do you have any hints to help me perform the experiment as you did? I would like to show it to my Earth Science students as a demonstration but only if I can get it to work properly. Thanks for your help.

[@adrianvance]

For a proper, fully explained and documented demo see: "CO2 Is Innocent" at: ScienceFrauds.blogspot.com as we include all the equations and stoichiometry in a classroom ready script for high school Science teachers.

[@tstdr]

There you have it. It's a con not a proof.

[@stevewilson4321]

Could you film what you did.... That way we can see what happened

[@joedoll645]

You need to look up the ideal gas law. That is what you demonstrated. The chemical reaction was increasing the pressure in the bottle that had the higher temperature.

[@wall_to_wall]

Thank you for the demo. I’m interested in having my Earth science students conduct a lab like this and I always like to see a run through before I give it a try.

[@joemonroe9456]

The specific heat of carbon dioxide is much lower, so for the same amount of heat applied, the temperature will rise faster in the carbon monoxide bottle. In an environment that is .04% carbon monoxide, the effect is almost nothing. Which is why all of the climate models have failed in their predictions.

[@stevewilson4321]

Oh and Thank God that you are a teacher... You are a society's last hope to save kids from all this crazy propaganda that says CO2 doesnt heat the air... Your job is hard and your not paid well enough for what you do, but I'm so glad you do it...

[@BladeJones]

Show them that anthropogenic global warming is a complete sham. Add JUST an extra 0.0139 parts per million to the test chamber and you will get NO change in temperature. 0.0139 is the amount of CO2 increase since the 1800s.

[@kissmyassbest]

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?

[@johnkosowski3321]

Is our atmosphere encapsulated in a plastic bottle? What was the change in CO2? Was there a pressure change in the CO2 bottle? Too many other variables to make this a good experiment, as noted by all of the comments. It doesn't mean that there is no GHE, but it sure doesn't mean that there is one either. I would be more interested in a scientific explanation of how CO2 in the atmosphere which is at a lower temperature cause the earth, which is at a higher temperature, to heat up. Thanks.

[@WForrestFrantz]

A really interesting demo would the be following using SWR and LWR transparant containers equally lit with day/night light, a black base, and thermocouples to record temperatures: 1) The control. Just air (CO2 ppm about 425). 2) One with elevated CO2 (about 1500 ppm). 3) One with air (CO2 about 425) and grass (type C3) base with adequate water and nutrients. 4) Same as (3) but at elevated CO2 (about 1500 ppm) Regional tests predict that (2) will be warmest and after 7 months, (4) will be the coolest (even cooler than the controls). We've found that CO2 warms deserts but cools jungles. Why? CO2, in general, also cools farmland. This would prove NASA theory that CO2 is cooling the Earth because of its effect on flora.

[@pieterypeij1298]

The this experiment is incorrect because the lamp is most focused on the left, which is clearly visible.

[@longstops1430]

Well do the experiment yourself and adjust the lamp accordingly and see what results you get. That's how science works.

[@pieterypeij1298]

@@longstops1430 I view it from thermodynamics unfortunately I cannot post the gas data on youtube. A few examples for a few gases concerning the cp at room temperature and an air pressure of 1013 mbar. cp water vapor 2000 J / K / kg, carbon dioxide 821 J / K / kg, air 1003 J / K / kg. So carbon dioxide absorbs heat easily but can also lose it easily in contrast to air for example.

[@giglioflex]

You are observing the effect of the CO2 that makes the bottle on the left appear brighter.

[@fiorentinofn]

=> Pressure * Volume = (Number of Particles) * R * Temperature; => R = const. 1. Same volume, increasing pressure, increase temperature. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It works for gases in general. [ B U S T E D ]

[@Bierdurstmann3000]

Why gets the left bottle more light?

[@rpattersonshs]

Both bottles would be at 100 percent relative humidity. Assuming the pressure was allowed to reach atmospheric air pressure in both bottles, we can use vapor pressure tables of water to calculate the ppmv of water in the bottle with mainly CO2 to be 102,000 The bottle containing CO2 would likely have 800,000 ppmv CO2. Now the bottle in which nothing was added would have 404 ppmv of CO2. and a water vapor concentration of 6,000 ppmv H2O. If the light is positioned so that both bottles are receiving the same amount of energy, then the water vapor in the bottle without extra CO2 is holding enough heat to account for 15.05 degrees and CO2 accounts for .05 deg C. In the other bottle, water vapor is accounting for 3.8 deg C and CO2 is accounting for 20.2 deg. C.

[@mjkeith8748]

Thanks for this, Eric. This is nice and simple and does involve C02. I am a bit confused though. It would seem that the greenhouse effect is already occurring with the plastic of the bottle which allows light in but no heat out. Is the alka seltzer CO2 adding to that greenhouse effect (proving your point), or just increasing the pressure thereby causing the temp to increase? Having a pressure sensor in each bottle as others below have suggested would be key.

[@denswei]

The pressure would bleed off too quickly to have an effect. The lids are obviously rather loose. However, as long as air is leaking out of the bottle, it will be carrying heat with it. This might explain the bump in the graph of the CO2 line at 20:00, after the alka seltzer ceased reacting and pressure equalized.

[@RScottLaMorte]

You can test the pressure theory by taking two 2L bottles of soda, shaking one, applying light, and measuring the temp of each. There will be no measurable difference.

[@gregorydeangelis7204]

More pressure on its own does not cause heat. Heat, though, can cause pressure.

[@alexandrecosta3796]

If you think the pressure increased the heat, then watch this one where the pressure was equalized: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZWQcpKloMeFgbM

[@adrianvance556]

@@gregorydeangelis7204 Increases in pressure do cause heat, as in Diesel engines or "heat pumps."

[@MrMichaelSStuart]

1. Is the lamp emitting infrared wavelength radiation to simulate IR going UP from the earth's SURFACE, rather than simulating the broad spectrum of visible and invisible radiation from the SUN? 2. A smart comment below asked whether the tablets + water caused an exothermic reaction generating heat. Just to rule out any heat from a possible exothermic rxn, I think you could monitor the temp for roughly 5 or 10 minutes (WITHOUT THE LAMP) to make sure both bottles have the same starting temp, THEN turn on the lamp to measure the greenhouse effect. Does that make sense? 3. Another smart comment below expressed concern about increased pressure causing increased Temp. So we can simply loosen the bottle's top for 1 or 2 sec to vent any excess gas so both bottles start at atmospheric pressure, right? (Then do the 5 or 10 min temp monitoring, THEN turn on the lamp.) Right?

[@dadlaponizil3687]

Thanks for the idea. We ran this experiment exactly the way you did and got the opposite results. The non-CO2 bottle got warmer. After some searching, we found this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3vTZWCneM6Dfrc. We were able to reproduce her results repeatedly. Not a scientist, but suspect we ignore 2 variables in your setup. Pressure and the endothermic reaction of the Alka Seltzer? In any case, the video cited removes both by keeping the CO2 generator separate and by leaving the container open to the atmosphere. Hope this saves some educators some of our trials and tribulations.

[@jonathancontreras6476]

Quick question, how long were you about to run the experiment with the other video? Did you do it over the course of 10 minutes like the other video or increase the time? How did the results go if you did increase the time?

[@samlair3342]

I watched the video you suggested. Excellent! It eliminates the pressure variable.

[@stevewilson4321]

Actually both videos demo the same thing... So you are doing something wrong... Post your video and lets see it.... If your worried about alka Seltzer tabs then use a CO2 canister or gas bottle instead... The idea is to eliminate variables not to reintroduce them...

[@grindupBaker]

A laboratory experiment CANNOT replicate the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere because .... the laboratory equipment has no tropospheric temperature lapse rate and emission moving up or down the lapse rate profile is what causes "greenhouse effect" warming, or cooling for the reverse changes occurring. A laboratory experiment, correctly performed, can prove (or disprove) that a certain gas or gas mixture absorbs & emits radiation more than some other gas or gas mixture (needed in Earth's troposphere for a gas to assist cloud water, ice & aerosol solids in setting a certain quantity of "greenhouse effect").

[@grindupBaker]

@@stevewilson4321 A laboratory experiment CANNOT replicate the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere because .... the laboratory equipment has no tropospheric temperature lapse rate and emission moving up or down the lapse rate profile is what causes "greenhouse effect" warming, or cooling for the reverse changes occurring. A laboratory experiment, correctly performed, can prove (or disprove) that a certain gas or gas mixture absorbs & emits radiation more than some other gas or gas mixture (needed in Earth's troposphere for a gas to assist cloud water, ice & aerosol solids in setting a certain quantity of "greenhouse effect").

[@kuldipt2906]

What is the point? Could the heat be generated by the chemical action of by mixing tablets in the water? Could the tablets mixing changed the density of the water, is a reason? Increased pressure in the bottle may increase the heat. Could this heat be diverted to heat the house?

[@stevetarrant3898]

Wow. I get it. Never Again will I take alka seltzer and walk out into the sun. It's a death trap. Thanks dude.

[@arnehofoss9109]

Stay away from beer and sparkeling wine also. Hugh danger! It is "carbonated" with Co2! Breed in but not out! You will exhale Co2.

[@nxgrs74]

If the heat lamp heats the gas in the bottle why does it not heat the surrounding gas in between? How would you know? Does the lamp heat the bottle and the bottle heat the gas? How would you know? The corked bottle is a closed system. The room and atmosphere are open systems. Slice off the rounded top of the bottles. Since CO2 is heavier than air the fully open bottle could be flood filled with CO2. Perform the experiment, observe and record. To ensure that the temperature sensor is measuring only the kinetic energy of the contained gas it should be shielded from the direct radiation of the heat lamp. A bit of light wire and a square of aluminum foil should be adequate. Perform the experiment with the shield toward the heat lamp. Observe and record. Now simply rotate the sensor or bottle so the shield is away from the heat lamp. Observe and record. What will you see? The temperature will spike because it is measuring the direct radiant energy from the lamp and not the indirect kinetic energy of the gas. The sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air.

[@Jfernandez83]

That pressure effect makes a big difference.

[@RScottLaMorte]

Try this experiment at home: Take two bottles of soda. Shake one bottle of soda so the pressure massively increases. Shine a light on both. Did the shaken bottle get 10 degrees warmer? Post the results here! =D

[@5Cats]

@@RScottLaMorte Lolz, go argue with Panurge (other comment) who claims the number of molecules is what matters. If one has higher pressure? It has more molecules and thus traps and retains more heat. Very basic science, which you choose to ignore.

[@alexandrecosta3796]

Then watch this one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZWQcpKloMeFgbM

[@stevewilson4321]

@@5Cats If Panurge said that then he is clueless... The heat has nothing to do with exttra molecules, even typing that felt imbecilic... The NaHCO3 bottle gets hotter because the CO2 released from the tablets absorbs IR energy from the lamp... Everything else is just denier anti science babble from deniers...

[@victorasoares]

Hey! I have a doubt. Sorry for a stupid question.. but have so many time that i studied it at high school.. that i dont remember anymore.. =p So, the question is: Is the reaction NaCO3 + H2O an exothermic reaction?

[@zzebowa]

Why is the lamp pointing more at the CO2 bottle?

[@frankenz66]

+zzebowa I noticed that as well. Also was there ever considered how much CO2 ppm that the Alka-Seltzered water contained. That was several tabs. Like Erik said there, the wattage of his "sun" being put out also has to be considered. His "Sun" appeared to be shining almost directly on his water bottles Something that only occurs near the equator on earth. Was the "sun" the same distance relative to the sun/relationship to scale? Etc.

[@skeetorkiftwon]

It's just the angle of the camera. You can find dozens of these on the internet, or better yet, do it for yourself and generate your own results! You could debunk these nasty climate change people from your own kitchen!

[@spiff1003]

This won't work. It is flawed because the IR absorbed by CO2 is of a logaritmic nature. Which means that in a small experiment like this, you may get a significant effect, while in a waaaay deeper experiment like in the atmosphere, you'd absorb almost all within the first kilometers of the atmosphere, and then it will drop significantly. At the end of the atmosphere, there would be hardly any radiation left, so what works when IR travels through a short distance with CO2 is nothing even near the real life where IR will be absorbed for kilometers. Sorry, but for this to be accurate, you need to have extremely accurate measurements and know measure know how fast the IR levels drops when travelling through the gas. Then multiply this to work with the atmosphere. It can also be viewed in a different way. Sun shines through the ocean. Allmost all light from the sun is absorbed within the upper 1000 meter of the ocean. Adding another 1000 meter to this, will not absorb the same amount of sunlight (energy), it will only absorb the same amount relative to what light is left from the sun. So... Back to the drawing board. To the best of my knowledge. Hardly anyone is disputing that CO2 can trap heat/IR, but that doesn't mean it will have any significant effect in the real world just because your experiment shows it. In fact, doubling the level of CO2 will only absorb about 1% more of that radiation, thus it will hardly impact at all when you know CO2 is only contributing the 3 percent of the total. (Water is 90%, CO2 is 30% of the remaining)

[@ButeSound]

**NOT GOOD SCIENCE**

[@holykaty9734]

excuse you?

[@peterbian2221]

Thanks a lot for the effort. Seemingly there is a basic concept confusion. Earlier I saw a similar experiment from University of Columbia and was inspired. However, it is not convincing. According to the basic thermodynamic law, the heat absorbed by a substance from a heating source equals to the product of its mass, its specific heat capacity and the temperature change. The specific heat capacity for CO2 = 0.84 KJ/(Kg*K), air = 1.00 KJ/(Kg*K), N2= 1.04 KJ/(Kg*K) and O2 = 0.92 KJ/(Kg*K), and water vapor much bigger. Clearly here, the heat reached to the two bottles are the same, because CO2 has smaller specific heat capacity, the temperature change associated with it is bigger than the other.

[@grindupBaker]

You forgot to include 50% of the thermal capacity of the bottle. The bottle weighs a lot more than the air or CO2 inside it. Also and more obviously the CO2 weighs 1.53 times as much as the air so your calculations are all completely wrong and it took more energy to raise CO2 temperature by 1 degree than it takes to raise air temperature by 1 degree. 44 grammes or more weight of 2 litre pop bottle, 3.9 grammes weight of 2 litres of CO2 in bottle, 2.6 grammes weight of 2 litres of air in bottle. Checkmate.

[@peterbian2221]

@@grindupBaker In thermodynamic calculations density is not necessary, but the mass and specific heat capacity are vital. Hope this help.

[@grindupBaker]

​@@peterbian2221 The specific heat capacities of various atmospheric gases in Earth's troposphere have nothing or minimal to do with the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere because the collision rate is something like 1,700,000,000 collisions / second and that's going to really even things out a lot. Hope this helps. Incidentally, as I keep pointing out, this lab demonstration cannot prove the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere, it can only dis-prove it because it merely proves a precursor which is 1 of 3 requirements. It proved that particular 1 of 3 requirements (infrared active) so it didn't falsify the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It didn't prove it either. That proof has been done by instruments orbiting on satellites.

[@grindupBaker]

@@peterbian2221 It simply indicates that a CO2 molecule absorbs some radiation which causes it to vibrate and when it hits another molecule, which it does 1,700,000,000 times / second, that vibration "kicks" the 2 molecules and speeds them up. This is measured as "temperature" how fast and how often the molecules are smacking into the thermometer molecules and jiggling them harder. If they could smack the thermometer molecules hard enough they'd rip them clean off and this is called "vaporizing the glass of a thermometer". Shit-simple, obvious stuff. ---------------- It doesn't prove the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere because that would need expensive equipment of special design including a centrifuge to make gravity and some other very-specially-designed equipment. This is because if air in the troposphere stayed the exact same temperature from surface to top like you take a balloon instrument on a wire so's it can only rise straight up and you measure 23.4 degrees at the surface and the same all the way up to 12,000 metres, then there couldn't be any "greenhouse effect" at all there even if it was jam-packed with "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" because it's actually the GHGs and clouds that radiate 92% of Earth's radiation to space and only 8% from the surface, so obviously if the troposphere temperature didn't change then the GHGs and clouds would radiate the same amount from the top as they would have radiated from the bottom if there weren't any more GHGs and clouds above them. Not as shit-simple and obvious as the 1st part above but still very simple indeed and completely obvious in an instant (well, simple indeed obvious to me at least).

[@andreas1983x2]

Nice attempts when the lamp is aligned with the left bottle...... Be fair and aim the lamp towards the middle.

[@RScottLaMorte]

Please do this experiment at home and share your results.

[@giglioflex]

You do realize that the CO2 is causing the left bottle to appear brighter right?

[@johndoe3328]

The bubbles in the bottle on the left are like little magnifying glasses. And more importantly, using the generic plop plop fizz fizz stuff causes an exothermic chemical reaction that introduces hot air into the bottle on the left. The experiment is an epic fail.

[@Venturestarx]

Next time, try changing the CO2 level from 0.0387% to 0.04% to actually have an experiment. That is the actual variable and amount changed in the last 50 years.

[@LaomerKedor]

Suppose he would do this ... what do you think of adjusting the strength of the lamp to the solar radiation and the space on which the light can interact with the gas to match the strength of the earth's atmosphere? It is a proof of concept. Get it?

[@Meowbay]

Actually, no, the variable is from 300 ppm to 410 ppm now. Plus CH4 is also a big player now. As is the additional H2O.

[@miltonfriedman2226]

Venturestarx this NEEDS to be done

[@taylorst123]

Perhaps he should also wait several hundred years to match that actual variable?

[@dax_orion]

This isn't an experiment. It's a demonstration. It's supposed to show the concept to people who are curious to see it in action, not to be peer reviewed evidence of global warming.

[@Kikkan110]

The greenhouse effect cannot be shown in an experiment like this because of the ideal gas law. Which is convenient.

[@Copainization]

I enjoyed your lab demo. I assume you increased the CO2 nearly 2500 times (.0404 up to 100 percent) and showed a 17.14 degree Fahrenheit rise? That works out to .72 degrees for every 105 PPM. Why aren't we seeing an appropriate rise of .82 degrees F? That's is figuring 120 PPM extra CO2 from 1919 to 2019. Of course you are working with alkaseltzer and infrared lamps so I'll give you some room. I'm still skeptical of Climate Changers often scaring children (not you necessarily) with doomsday scenarios while the earth still holds many secrets. Scientists could be more alarmed at the immoral maneuvering by non scientists. Those fakirs hoping to reconfigure society and erode our liberty while claiming the CO2 debate is over.

[@willgeorge5644]

the temperature rise is moderated by the sea temperature for one thing.

[@Jamie-cz2xu]

Thats not the only variables. You got bubbles on the one on the left, bubbles will refract more light, you got a higher pressure, a higher pressure gas will always be a higher temperature than a lower pressure gas. And the water is contaminated having more particles in the water. More particles catch more light. 3 variables are unaccounted for so if you really wanted to do this demo properly you would get dry ice as your CO2 source..... I think i will do that and try this experiment and if CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, i should get the same result as you.