@@dmitryisakov8769 Or even better, ask them to read the exact papers and studies that first claimed climate change is man made and let the smart kids answer the question whether it is merely by propositional calculus of the papers.

@@dmitryisakov8769 I think it was the 60s

The experiement did not suck. It just proved something you did not like.

I got some change in temperature in my head after this . I just had to leave my headache and this videoclip alone !

You should've probably wrapped it all in the aluminum foil After all, light doesn't travel couple centimeters through the gas, but tens and hundreds of kilometers, which you could mimic by reflecting light through the same environment many times

Let’s not discount the plastic bags taped to a meter stick!

The most knowledgeable people can explain complicated concepts in simple terms, this guy is the real deal

It also suggests that IR thermometers may give differing measurements depending on the air-mixture in the surrounding environment!

Somewhat less than perfect I'd say

@@ericwazhung Shh 🤫Science does not has "differing" opinions

water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but earth has this special particularity where it exists in the exact temperature window where water can exist in the liquid form in the surface. meaning the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is relatively constant and affected by a bunch of different variables. one of them is temperature, the hotter the temperature is, more water vapor the air will retain. meaning that if you tip the balance of temperature with another greenhouse gas that stays in the atmosphere, like CO2, it will increase the temperature, consequently increasing the humidity of the air, consequently speeding up the greenhouse effect making the atmosphere retain even more water vapor, and so on.

@@danilooliveira6580 Why does water vapor not do this anyway?

@@robinwallace6259 I mean, it kinda does, but maybe without something to tip up the scales it will balance itself, climatology is very complicated. for example clouds reflect sunlight too, so it also counters climate change, so why doesn't water vapor stops climate change if clouds reduce the amount of energy reaching earth's surface and ? no fucking clue. or why was the Holocene average temperature strangely stable ? no idea. climatology is complicated and I'm not a climatologist. all I can give you is some simple things that I know to be true, and hopefully it will guide you on looking the answers for yourself. hell, I may even try to look for myself to learn more about the mechanics of the stability of water vapor in the atmosphere.

@@danilooliveira6580 that's not the argument. If all the wavelengths of infrared that co2 can absorb are already absorbed by water vapor, there simply isn't anything to absorb. This is why the effect of co2 is logarithmic and not linear.

Also use an empty bag to show how you calibrated your test results to the test materials and not added materials. Same mistakes as the first glass experiment

Even the thickness and weight would very wildly on same bag.

Exactly

The other problem is that CO2 doesn't emit heat, or reflect it. It absorbs it. This is why CO2, when you pressurize it, actually gets colder: Because you're absorbing more heat from the surrounding environment as CO2 goes from gas straight to solid, as the compound is at the same time, trying to sublimate back from a solid to a gas.

@@isaiahwelch8066 Well, actually all gases heat up when you compress them, including CO2.

It doesn't really matter that much if the IR radiation is absorbed or reflected. If it is absorbed then it results in direct heating of the atmosphere. If it is reflected then it will go back to the earth where it will be reradiated and then rereflected, along the way getting absorbed by other gasses and of course the CO2 each time it reflects some because there is no such thing as perfect reflection. The main point is that the radiation will stay within the atmosphere whether it is reflected or absorbed. The biggest problem that I have with this experiment is that who knows what wavelength of radiation is coming off of the hotplate. It needs to be the specific wavelength of radiation that the earth emits(I don't remember this number off of the top of my head and it's most likely a range of several wavelengths).

Are you referring to something

In atmosfer we have 440 parts per milion soo we cant compare with this experiment

@@pawepeszko9726 why is that important

I am not defending him bc i absolutely HATE what he's become, but he has at least admitted to being wrong about GMOs..

If that ain't the truth

Methane should be next

Releasing that CO2 canister in the jar increased the humidity some.

It would be similar results, depending on how well the gas absorbs IR radiation. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, it just doesn’t change much, unlike the man made CO2. Methane on the other hand had a much higher absorptivity of IR so you would expect it see a bigger change than CO2 in the experiment. While methane absorbs more IR light, there is less of it in the atmosphere than CO2, which is often why we predominantly hear about CO2

@@abrumm87 The "green house gasses" should have a cooling effect on the earths surface as they absorb energy in the atmosphere rather than it being absorbed by the surface of the earth. When these gasses radiate the energy they absorbed they do so in all directions so half is radiated towards outer-space. The temperature of the atmosphere where most of this absorption of energy happens is cooler than the surface of the earth. Never has it been shown that a cooler object can warm a hotter object through radiation. Such a phenomenon would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

@@opossumlvr1023 You've misunderstood the mechanism. It's not about absorbing heat coming from the sun and hitting the Earth; it's about absorbing IR energy escaping from the Earth's surface as it cools. The planet absorbs EM energy from a wide spectrum, heating up in the process. It radiates energy in a narrow IR spectrum, and CO2's absorption spectrum is in the sweet spot to absorb that released energy. It then releases half of it out into space, but half of it goes back down to heat up the surface once again. .

Too bad so many other people have done the experiment and got the same result. It's not really a great experiment. It's certainly not the one that scientists use to measure the greenhouse power of CO2. A 6-inch wide jar is not the same as a miles-deep atmosphere. Also, the experiment done here is botched. There's nothing in the jars for the light to hit. The hole point of the experiment is that visible light warms something, and CO2 reduces its ability to shed heat. In this case, light just passed through the jar, so you wouldn't expect to see any difference regardless of what gas is inside. As for you claim about to identical pixels. I hate to break it to you, but the proper way to do the experiment is to do it twice with the exact same setup so that all possible variables have been eliminated other than the gas. Go figure, when the same camera is looking at the same thermometer under the same lighting and nothing's been moved, they look the same. If he's faked it, it's obviously a pretty advanced fake, since you can see the refraction of the blue fluid elsewhere in the glass. (Not red. Maybe you should bother to actually look so you can get your lies straight).

Actual Fact: Bill Nye is not a real scientist. He's a paid TV actor from the 90's. Nobody should be listening to him. Would you listen to Bob Barker about neutering your dog? no!

@@ryanj2768 Even more actual fact. Nobody cares if he's a "real scientist." If you don't want to listen to him, you should listen to the really real scientists who's results he's cribbing off of. The science is clear, and he's just the messenger.

Fun fact. John Tyndall did a similar experiment over a hundred years ago, he came to the same result

Which is weird. Nye's doing it for the right cause, why fake the evidence?

@@dmitryisakov8769 if reflection can only happen from surface, why are we able to observe the whole planet atmospheric boundaries from space?

@@dmitryisakov8769 im asking why i cant see reflection of a gas ? what is preventing me from seeing the reflection of a gas.

@@dmitryisakov8769 and if i change gas to liquid will then be i able to observe reflection ?

@@dmitryisakov8769 You can observe a reflection whenever there is a change of index of refraction. That's why mirages work. The size of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with its absorbance and emission of IR, this it is the bonding of the atoms within the molecule that causes it.

He used the scientific method to check the science? Absurd!

@@F_L_U_X ⚠️ God has said in the Quran: 🔵 { O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - ( 2:21 ) 🔴 [He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. ( 2:22 ) 🔵 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. ( 2:23 ) 🔴 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.( 2:24 ) 🔵 And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. ( 2:25 ) ⚠️ Quran

That is also why I am watching this channel

ahaa exactly!

There's a lot of good stuff in journals.

The vast majority of the time, he's correct though. It sounds like you're just an asshole.

what did he do in the past?

he's a political hack

You beat me to the punch! CO is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the experiment only showed a few degrees of difference with 100% CO. Goes to show we probably got more important issues to worry about.

@@kyle.1442 How about urban heat islands? The massive amount of solar energy absorbed by concrete and asphalt causes directly observable climate change, such as 50%-100% increased rainfall downwind of cities, and nighttime temperatures in cities 20 degrees (Fahrenheit) warmer than surrounding areas. I don't understand how nobody is looking at this, the few studies done on it indicate a moderate to severe impact on the climate and yet everyone is focused on greenhouse gases instead.

@@kyle.1442 but the atmosphere is tens of miles thick. Can an IR sensor in space detect heat signatures from the surface?

@@areadenial2343 What I wish is that they would use heat batteries to store unwanted heat and ship it off to people that need it. If not that, how about pull it off roads, but return it to the road to prevent ice forming. It would increase the lifespan of the road, stop accidents due to ice, and help the local flora and fish from salt used to melt ice.

@@entelechy00 Sounds good in theory, in practice you'd be increasing the infrastructure cost significantly by adding thousands of miles of heat pipes under every road, not to mention the maintenance required to pump that much water/coolant around. There are already more environmentally-friendly de-icing solutions which are effective at lower temperatures, and more easily spread, so we should focus on improving those rather than tearing up every road in America. Although, replacing those roads with bike paths and train lines would reduce the amount of asphalt needed in the first place...

It is well known that CO2 does not reflect IR, it only absorbs it. But it's a good question and it would be interesting to test it in an experiment. You would have to show that CO2 emits IR, which is tricky, but possible.

@@lorenkelley1568 Why not put the sensor on the same side as the burner to check?

@@lorenkelley1568 "You would have to show that CO2 emits IR, which is tricky, but possible." Any absorber is also an emitter. The difference with reflection is that re-emission is in a random direction.

if it reflects it would also be known that it doesn't absorb "fully" the temperature... CO2 is just propaganda to put more money in government pockets

Even if it did only that, it would still be a problem that caused climate change as a significant portion of the reflected light would be directed back at earth.

Except CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't quite translate to CO2 in concentration as an effect on climate. Take that bag of nature's air, put it under dynamic conditions. The Earth's global electric circuit, various pressures and temperatures relative to location in atmosphere.... Ok, I'm bored now. Surely more intelligent people than I know how to play real science or else publishing a science paper is the same as congress passing a bill to find out what is being legislated.

The question is about contributed amounts and what is inevitable . It is not real easy to figure out what hurricane is caused by humans and what isn't.

as CO2 is an irreplacable essential atmospheric nutrient for all green plants I find this type of 'climate' experimentation too naive for words. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere directly increases crop yield because IT IS A PLANT NUTRIENT. Farmers with greenhouses add CO2 to make their plants grow better - ask tomato growers in the Netherlands. And more heat is good, that speeds up plant growth too, check out the biodiversity in the equatorial jungles of the world.

@@MyMy-tv7fd That is an oversimplified viewpoint

@@MyMy-tv7fd This is not a helpful comment to calm climate alarmists. Too much heat and the plants will not survive. Different species of plants survive in a range of varying parameters.

should check out operation Popeye climate change is real and it is 100% man-made not by accident. That is why it will be used as the tool to mask the destruction of the global economy so they may rebuild a new forever separating the people and the tyrants in a new global structure system. There will be climate catastrophes all man-made they have been modifying the weather since Vietnam. Using it as a weapon.

For sure. Instead of studying science, he now "follows" "the science".

@@kyleduddleston4123 Most stupid comment ever.

@@k1ry4n Most ineffective Karen comeback ever.

@@kyleduddleston4123 Ineffective maybe. True nonetheless.

Measuring the heat retention of the CO2 wouldn’t matter in the case of the bags. The heat from each bag would dissipate through convection and also radiation out to the atmosphere around the bags. The earth doesn’t have an atmosphere around the atmosphere. Since CO2 absorbs more heat, once the sun goes down it transfers the heat to the rest of the atmosphere and the process starts again when the sun comes around again. Air lets the IR radiation from the sun bounce back to space better than CO2 does. CO2 holds onto it and release it to the rest of the atmosphere better than air

@@rdear you are thinking there is only one layer of atmosphere there are more than that and each one can absorb and radiate out to the next one. It is not a closed loop scenario otherwise we would have had run away heating when the atmosphere had over 4000ppm, the greatest explosion of life on the planet, or even when it was over 9000 ppm.

@@daelrance6866 it’s a very closed system. One atmosphere. Even if the “other layers” absorb the heat, it’s still in the same atmosphere. The only way to get heat to leave the earth is to have it radiate via IR back into space. If the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are keeping the IR from reflecting back to space it stays here. And average global temperatures used to be much higher millions of years ago when CO2 concentrations were higher.

@@daelrance6866 Also, CO2 isn't as effective at heating from IR as water vapor. People don't freak out when there's clouds around but they absorb a great deal of IR heat, then dissipate it back to the atmosphere. And CO2 is extremely hydrophilic so the entire CO2/greenhouse gas argument is completely bogus because we have paleontological evidence that higher CO2 levels aren't as harmful as claimed.

@@rdear Probably because CO2 lags behind temp.

This simple experiment gave us a 3% capture rate, climate models use 30%. Physicist Yong Zhong says his experiments result in approximately 5%. He also shows that a small percentage of wavelengths are captured and radiative forcing seems to be Independent of C02 levels. This experiment showed us that C02 will help stop radiation from reaching the Earth. not sure how that proves climate change or global warming. This was a bigger stretch than chicken littles claim.

He's using the same material bag for both gasses. In case of CO2 less infrared radiation from hot plate (Sun) reaches thermometer (Earth) !

You know a lot about green house cover and heat because I have a future project here in vest Sahara where I want the light but not the heat from the sun light and can't realy finde out what cover will be best. So far I have ended on pet because it should alou the heat to eskape but hope you could point me in the best direction.

@@eriknielsen1849 PE is the most transparent to IR radiation, but it probably does not solve the heat problem alone. Consider including a heat absorbing material. Phase change waxes with melting point about 20 C are available. I used a water pond as heat reservoir, but it lost effectiveness when the pond surface froze limiting thermal conductivity. In a next iteration, I would use Al rods to conduct heat to and from the pond bottom. My design is for cold climates. Ice is probably not a problem for you. Another strategy is to cover the greenhouse with a good reflector (aluminized bubble wrap, for example) and admit filtered light (chlorophyll absorption wavelengths, for example) through a light pipe. These are public domain solutions you are free to use.

@@drd4059 thank you very much knew you would have som good suggestions. I was run out of seartch ideas.

So many people seem to not figure that out.

They might also not figure out that, since air is present in all setups, the difference between the 'bag of air' measurement versus the 'nothing' measurement already give you how much the ziploc bags block IR light!

Co2 is also 50% more dense than air, so that could explain the higher absorbtion seen in this experiment. I dont think this is a slam dunk setup to prove global warming is caused by co2, but i appreciate that its the best he can do on a table in his living room.

@@Nbomber most global warming comes from water vapour. Co2 is a greenhouse gas but most of its work is done by 300ppm. People don't realize co2 acts like a notch filter, a bit like poleroid glasses. These experiments were done over 100 years ago by Nobel prize winning scientists like Plank and Schwarzschild. They proved that after 400ppm you need to double co2 to 800ppm to get any extra absorbtion. If you're interested also look up Prof William Happer.

@@nigelliam153 thats pretty interesting actually. Tbh, i wonder how much warming is caused by co2 to begin with. Theres a lot of people on the planet and they use a lot of energy. All of which eventually is dissipated as heat. Ive always wondered how much of an effect that has too.

That was my question. How much is being absorbed and how much is being reflected?

The main reason is that the other 99% of the atmospheric gases (ignoring water vapour) don't really absorb or trap IR radiation. So going from 0.02 to 0.04 sounds tiny but what you have done is doubled the available gas in the atmosphere that can absorb CO2. This has huge consequences for the delicate balance of absorption and radiation of energy from the sun. And this process has been happening for almost 200 years, it's not a new thing. Add in other gases like methane, water vapour increases due to rising temperatures, deforestation, and feedback mechanisms like melting ice, and you end up with the disaster we're now living through.

@@kasroa what disaster? Calm down and stop acting like an hysterical dumb politician.

@@kasroa lol... It's a scam. There is no disaster we are living through

there is a greenhouse gas that is 23000 times worse than co2. annual emissions of this gas are co2 equivalent to 100 million cars and this gas is stable in the atmosphere for 3200 years. sf6 so by using said gas we add 100million cars of co2 equivalent that will stay in the atmosphere for 3200 years PER YEAR. but it's required for the distribution of electricity so you don't hear much about it.

@@kasroa now include water vapor which absorbs most of the ir co2 can. Put water vapor in the bags, see what you get.

How the hell would u do that? Put it in a vacuum chamber? We’re surrounded by air

As a concept it doesn’t matter since both gases have the same type of bag, so what it would show wouldn’t make a difference in the outcome.

I too would love, out of curiosity, to find out how much IR radiation the plastic absorbs. It might not have been needed for the desired result for proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas though, since both gases are placed in presumably identical ziplock bags with presumably the same material, and the experiment indeed showed that CO2 absorbs more IR radiation. Hope this experiment is a way to wake us up to the imminent havoc climate change will bring.

@@Rekoyl116 they often come already sealed without air in them.

@@jay.viation That's true, a control with a uninflated bag would have been interesting, though the 2-layer thickness vs single layers spread apart might have been a wildcard. He could have cut the bag in half and used the 2 halves separated. So, 2 controls, and the 2 bags he used, but that would have made for a longer video.

He basically never does. Any of his "demonstrations" are flawed to the extent of being basically charlatanism. he does more damage to his cause than help.

Bill Nye can't tell you what a woman is.

Not the first time

Bill Nye the sold out guy.

Caution: one would have to measure the exact same volume in each of the bags to compare them scientifically, and maybe even the amount of molecules, AKA molars. Also, CO2 is 400 parts per million in our atmosphere. Are we even comparing apples to apples here? Also UV and VUV light in the upper atmosphere may have a different response than the infrared alone. What frequencies of IR shall we measure? UV can also split CO2 in the presence of O2 Remember, we are noticing a small difference of 10 points over 300, or approximately 1/3 of a percent. Thus even small changes in bag volume could account for this discrepancy. All these factors must be accounted for to be accurate.

Its all a scam and a hoax. We know this but governments wont stop taxing CO2.

The CO2 properties in the atmosphere reflect and absorb heat. So the affect in the atmosphere is more neutral than explained. Also real scientists have shown the temperature of the earth increases before the increase of CO2. Check out PHD William Clapper on you tube.

Exactly, it's the sale of indulgences, but in the physical world.

There is no better teacher than the past and/or real observation. Long ago C02 levels were multiples higher than today. The Earth was lush and green and life was thriving. Time is irrelevant the Earth didn't burn, it thrived. Global temperatures have been on a flat to downward trend for about 8 years while CO2 has gone up considerably. NASA shows the Earth to be about 15% greener, mostly in arid regions. Polar bear populations are up considerably, despite the claims. NOAA data says weather events have not incresed or gotten worse no matter what the media or politicians say. People are not dying because of climate change. Climate/weather related deaths are down approximately 98% over the past century. Self-proclaimed climate prophets are buying houses on the beach, rising sea levels be damned. We allow up to 1000ppm CO2 as safe inside our children's schools. Real world data and observation seem to be contradicting the theories, models and hard hitting reports.

Yes plants love CO2... 200PPM is where plants have big problems 425ppm or 0,04%is the content in the atmosfere not 200ppm

The pressure, being proportional to the moles given the similar temp and fixed volume of the bag, would mean that higher pressure means more gas and thus more IR absorption. As he mentions, this is essentially a spectrometer, which means that we we could think of using Beer’s law. And yes, a pressure difference might constitute a “concentration” difference and path length difference, the true difference in absorption comes from the difference in molar absorptivity for CO2 vs air. Meaning that I think the minimal pressure diff isn’t having a huge impact. Cheers

Water vapor is not clouds, and clouds are not water vapour. Clouds actually prevent heating due to albedo by reflecting visible light. Water vapour is indeed also a greenhouse gas, it exacerbates the effect as warm air tends to contain more of it.

@@landsgevaer We need to stop labeling everything a greenhouse gas. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If air containing water vapor is a greenhouse gas then pretty much all air on earth is a greenhouse gas now.

@@JustinL614 The water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

@@landsgevaer Low level clouds reduce temperature; high level clouds overall do the opposite.

So, heat up the room to 212 degrees so he can capture a bag of water vapor? That would be a sweaty day. You can't capture water vapor in a bag at room temperature. You can capture humid air and do a test, humid are vs dry air. But, yes, water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, however, it's also temperature dependent. If CO2 turns up the dial 0.2 degrees, that 0.2 degrees holds more water vapor which increases the temperature another 0.2 degrees. That's called a feedback. CO2 is the volume nob. Water vapor is the feedback, at least for Earth-like temperatures.

He PROVED that HIGHER CO2 levels are NOT A PROBLEM. The bag contained 100% CO2. and he got a 10 degree CHANGE in temperature. But we are talking about CO2 levels that are .04% of the atmosphere. Not 100%. That means we can only use .04% of the 10 degree temperature change observed. That's a measly .004 degree increase in temperature with CO2 levels at 400ppm. And humans are only responsible for 100ppm of that. So the HUMAN contribution to "Global Warming" is only .001 degrees.

Sigh. One wants to see a result in seconds! In reality, the temperature increase takes many decades! Obviously, one needs much more CO2 here. Several lines of evidence demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm would result in 3 °C higher temperatures.

Sigh😂 Enderwiggin, no need for eye rolling arrogance. I have an enquiring mind and I was simply curious to see what would happen when running the experiment with levels of co2 close to reality would produce? I’m not denying Co2 is a greenhouse gas and I would completely expect to see these results with pure Co2, surely if the the discussion is about levels of Co2 why not do the experiment with different levels of co2 rather than it being all or effectively nothing (0.03%) @@enderwiggin1113

Actually, it would be more interesting to see a second bag of CO2 placed in series. If the first bag absorbs nearly all of the IR then there won’t be much difference.

@@briansauk6837 Why not simply a larger bag?

I asked the same question more or less. See Hug et al. The world doesn't fit in a zip lock baggie. IR absorption is a function of distance, once saturation is reached all of the available energy has been absorbed.

AND we know co2 is greening the planet and that plants release aerosols that cool the planet. This experiment isn't relevant in the real world and yet bill nye still faked the results

shhh, don't contradict the climate mafia (aka Soros Inc)

My thought exactly. 😉 these people conclude the way they want it to be.

You're doing great work, thank you!

CO2 absorption happens in a particular band in the *IR* spectrum.

Okay...... IR is basically heat. And the heat levels is the major concern with CO2.

His acting career really boosted him up there.

He also failed as a stand-up comedian. Now he's just an NWO puppet.

Then you watched 6 minutes of his Netflix show and wanted to re-enact the "Brooks was Here" scene from Shawshank...

I think co2 in atmosphere is measured in ppm. Around 4ppm.? Parts per million

@@TheRainHarvester 0.04% is 400 ppm. Or math has changed recentrly ?

@@tauntaun1507 That’s not math, that’s chemistry and math in tandem, and you’re wrong!

@@mrperfect87106 He's actually correct. 0.04% is 400 ppm

@@mrperfect87106 1 ppm is .0001%. Multiply that by 400 and the result is .04%. So how is he wrong?

But you conventiently ignore the current temperature anomaly that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic sources, because you do not understand it. You are attempting to hand-wave using large timescales, 200 years is not a large geologic timescale, friend.

@@xero2715 YES 200 years is not enough to gauge anything, including the effects of assumed cause. However, you can look at the vostok petit ice cores and see that we are ON PAR with the ice age heartbeat. 90k years of cold, 10k years of warm. The warm period gets really warm just before the precipitous fall. Look at the charts yourself. Most people don't know this, but there is a giant ball of burning plasma around 1.3 million times earth's volume standing over us day after day. The ipcc has intentionally left out solar forcing until ipcc7. Why? They say its effects are poorly understood. If that is so, then why are nasa scientists able to predict conditions on other planets for landing probes using the sun?

I know, fresh air has .04% co2 the other bag had i think, had wayyy more than that, still had little effect. i trust science, i just don't trust scientists anymore, because any scientist that don't get the correct results THEY (billionaires) want gets defunded and deplatformed.

It's a segway to a sponsor. I believe the science ends when the commercial begins.

1. It does block IR from the initial source (the plate) here. That is exactly what's shown. 2. The absorption of IR transforms it into heat, which will be partially released as IR but mostly transferred to other molecules... eventually a given quantity of heat energy will be all radiated away... but in that time it already absorbed more additional heat. So a system with more CO2 instead of Oxygen will remain at a hotter equilibrium temperature. 3. Yes, CO2 indeed blocks/absorbs sunlight both ways. First when it enters the atmosphere, then again when molecules on earth reflect it or transform heat into new IR radiation. 4. Yes, it's insulation. That's why greenhouses or iglos are often used for comparison, which also use principles of insulation to trap heat in a particular place (that place being all of earth in case of global warming).

@@T33K3SS3LCH3N the world isn't as simple as this lab experiment. The effect of co2 is logarithmic, not linear. Water vapor already absorbs most of the ir co2 can absorb. And Co2 is greening the planet, increasing the amount of plants which in turn release aerosols that have a cooling effect.

Look up the greenhouse effect sometime. The visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere virtually without loss. The surface of the earth reflects some of this light(which is the light that we see) the rest is absorbed and eventually radiated back out to empty space as invisible infrared radiation. Most of that radiation is lost to space but some is absorbed by greenhouse gasses like water vapor and co2 and radiated back toward earth. This process is what keeps earth from being a frozen wasteland like mars(which has no water vapor and very little co2 in its atmosphere). Joseph Fourier actually calculated what the temperature of the earth should be based on its size and distance from the sun if it were only get heat directly from the sun and found that to be -18 degrees celcius, thus proving that something was causing the planet to retain heat.

It would have the sane temperature as the bag filled with air. As the amount of air to plastic the IR has to go through would remain constant.

Plastic does not reflect IR.

@@MrIbib but does co2 reflect ir?

@@Chaoticrandomness102 no, it absorbs it… that’s the whole point.

CO2 is the gas of life.

There *is* a correlation between the temperature of an object and the amount of blackbody radiation of a certain wavelength it emits! So, by assuming the object is not emitting radiation other than blackbody radiation in the specific wavelength the thermometer is using (and it's a rather fair assumption), then you can use that to measure temperature without any issue!

Yes and I was explaining the effect lowering the CO2 would have in plants in aquatic environments to Professor Brian Cox, set off his ego and he blocked me. I explained to Michael Mann who one of his papers was wrong and he used a DVI in the wrong way and his conclusion was wrong and the same thing happened. And on and on it has gone like that. They make big claims but they do little research, leave out this they don't like and don't explain themselves. Then present it like it's proven when it's not.

@@saintallnights7239 you have added yourself to my “ he’s a good one” list ✌️

1200ppm over a distance of what? 3-4 meters in height for a greenhouse? vs a extra ~130ppm over 100km of atmosphere... Gee i wonder why. Also, what CO2 does is slow down the loss of heat out to space, not stop it entirely. For the greenhouse analogy that means that if they didn't add the CO2 they'd have to add more heat at night. edit: furthermore the vast majority of energy loss at night those greenhouse experience is through thermal-conducting, through the glass, not infrared radiation losses. The earth in space, doesn't experience that at all. it can only lose heat through infrared radiation.

@@TheCountess666 they do add more heat at night, sounds like you missed the point of my post.

I understand some of them use fans to "pump" the enriched CO2 air up above their crops from ground level where CO2 likes to sit due to its density. This is why I think the greenhouse analogy is misapplied as CO2 isn't really slowing entropy in the same way a greenhouse does.

Yes!! You are correct. He just PROVED that HIGHER CO2 levels are NOT A PROBLEM. The bag contained 100% CO2. and he got a 10 degree CHANGE in temperature. But we are talking about CO2 levels that are .04% of the atmosphere. Not 100%. That means we can only use .04% of the 10 degree temperature change observed. That's a measly .004 degree increase in temperature with CO2 levels at 400ppm. And humans are only responsible for 100ppm of that. So the HUMAN contribution to "Global Warming" is only .001 degrees.

I read we are currently at .0421%. So since industrial revolution we have only increased 21 parts per MILLION. Add that much more co2 to the air bag and repeat experiment.

@@TheRainHarvester What? The industrial Revolution has much less than 400 ppm. The increase is much larger than 21 ppm

@Ron Quiring The atmosphere is not even close to 4% water vapor. It's probably 1% or less. And CO2 leads to some warning which increases water vapor, and that causes more warning too.

@@DANGJOS 4000ppm during Cambrian to 180ppm pre industrial. It's all over the place. I didn't realize it was at 4000ppm historically.

Um... more is more? Contributing to a problem is just that? It's not a race, where only first place matters, it's additive. It's like only worrying about twenty five pound plates on a barbell, and discounting the 5 pound weights someone keeps adding. The atmosphere is a delicate balance and getting it a little off has dire consequences and can't just be fixed in a jiffy. Im no eco warrior, but the whole thing about formulas is that all the integers are important.

Well, it does radiate off the captured energy in all directions. But yes, the CO2 bag itself should be hotter than the air bag. A thermometer inside the bags would have read a warmer CO2 bag . . . slightly. The temperature radiates away fairly quickly and some of the heat would be lost to expansion, so that would require a more sensitive measurement. You'd also need to have the 2 bags spend the same time at the same distance from the heat-source, so more could go wrong. You'd need to carefully measure distances and be sure the heat source radiated equally in both directions.

@@YTEdy put water vapor In both bags as well, see what you get :p

@@brandonstone2754 Why both? The purpose of a test is to test one thing against another, so water vapor in one, not the other, but that's harder to do because there's already water vapor in the air. We call it humidity. It's also quite thin at room temperature.

@@YTEdy water vapor absorbs most of the ir, it's like the original experiment where the glass jar blocked all the IR so there was no difference with co2. In the real world water vapor functions as the glass jar

@@brandonstone2754 Not sure what you mean by "water vapor is the glass jar", but I agree on the rest. The problem is, CO2 is a gas at room temperature. Water vapor is water at room temperature, with a very thin gaseous equilibrium. You can't do the experiment with water vapor unless you heat up the room considerably, or unless you incorporate a vacuum and use much larger containers.

Also put a bag of water vapor behind each bag and see what you get

The problem with your comment is that it assumes people are as ignorant as you are.

Do you know what a rate of change is? The only people who seem to not know about long-term heating and cooling of the planet is you people. We all know that over time the average temperature of the planet changes over time, you're not blowing anyone's minds. If you actually took the time to understand the stuff that you're attempting (and failing) to disprove, you'd know this. Our current anomaly is the highest it has been in 100,000 years, over 10 times greater than your false estimate. The current rate of temperature change is far, far too high to be natural, it cannot be explained by the sun, nor geological activity, or any other non anththropogenic source, because it is anthropogenic.

Gases only sink in air when they're collected together. Dispersed throughout the air it would be carried around with collisions of other air molecules. Gas mixtures don't self differentiate, as far as I know.

The one with air is 400 ppm CO2. Do you mean compared with air without CO2 at all?

@@DANGJOS Yes and also one with CO2 at a pre-industrial value and one with the current CO2 value. Are the very small percentages even detectable in an IR experiment? This would be a most useful demonstration imo.

@@CosD I think that probably would be hard to detect. The thing that the earths atmosphere is gigantic but that bag is definitely not.

The truth is the results would be immeasurable with his setup with those tiny parts per millions of CO2. It would need to be a much larger scale experiment with much more accurate measuring equipment and a much stronger emphasis on controlling the variables.

Did you remember to use kevlin? if not the % absorbed would be much lower

CO2 won't be the only factor in temperature rises. With enough of an increase, ice can start melting in colder areas which will reduce the Earth's albedo and open up more space to absorb more energy.

can an increase of about 0,001% in heat absorption in the earth's atmosphere change the climate?

@Daniel Meyers According to the experiment there is a (

@Daniel Meyers you could just design the model to account for that. Seems they choose not to.

According to physics/chemistry, an ideal gas always occupies 22.41 liters, per mole of gas molecules, at standard temperature and pressure conditions (STP), regardless of what type of gas it is (so long as it qualifies as an "ideal gas", rather than something else, like clouds, which are not an "ideal gas", and are actually a mix of gas and microscopic liquid water droplets). In other words, for both CO2 and ordinary air (at the same pressure and temperature conditions), the "molecular density" (ex: the number of molecules per cubic centimeter) of both gases is the same. The CO2 gas does however have higher "gravimetric density", as each CO2 molecule is heavier than an average air molecule. Consequently, if you measure the mass of each bag shown in the experiment, the bag with the CO2 should be slightly heavier, assuming otherwise identical fill volume, temperature, pressure, and amount of plastic material used in each bag. However, for the purposes of infrared and other electromagnetic radiation absorption, it is the molecular density of the medium that matters, not the gravimetric density. When a photon of infrared light passes near a molecule of a gas (such as CO2 or air), there is a certain probability of interaction of that photon with the molecule. If you pass the photons through a thicker medium (ex: by adding more total CO2 to the bag, thus making it thicker, albeit at approximately the same pressure), there will be more opportunities for the photon to get absorbed by a gas molecule, as the photon will necessarily have to pass in close proximity to more total molecules to reach the other end of the medium. Increasing the pressure increases the molecular density of the gas, which will also have the same effect of increasing the probability of interaction of the photon passing through the medium, even without increasing the thickness of the medium. In other words, the data from the experiment shown in this video was potentially valid, although in order to be actually trustworthy scientific data, he would need to do at least one control experiment to demonstrate that the reduction in IR transmissivity through the CO2 filled bag was in fact due to the CO2 fill gas, rather than some other factor (such as the wall thickness of the two plastic bags potentially being different). One way to do this, would be to remove the gas from both plastic bags, and then verify that the IR transmissivity through both bags is effectively the same (ex: implying that the plastic bag wall thicknesses are effectively the same, since plastic objects do transmit relatively longwave IR wavelengths of interest to the IR thermometer, but the plastic material is still somewhat opaque, as demonstrated by the reduction in reported "temperature" for the air filled plastic bag, as compared to plain air with no bag in between the sensor and IR source). Another control experiment that could be done, would be to swap the fill gas of the two bags (ex: empty both bags, then fill the bag labelled "air" with CO2, and the bag labelled "CO2" with air), and then repeat the experiment. If the two experiments both indicated the same result (ex: the bag with the CO2 fill was reducing the IR transmissivity, regardless of which bag was being filled with the CO2), then the results would be much more trustworthy scientific data, as such experiments would demonstrate that potential differences in plastic bag wall thickness was not a likely source of error in the experiments.

It was done by Max Plank about 100 years ago and doubling it from 400ppm to 800ppm makes vertually no difference. Look up Prof William Happer He is probably the worlds leading expert on co2 reradiation.

The CO2 concentration in these experiments are far far above 300 or 500 ppm, I guess closer to 900000 ppm. CO2 only holds a narrow band around around 15 micron wavelength. All the short- and longwave IR goes through. And we don't see the effect of latent vertical convection in these experiments at all. I agree with Nigel Liam. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is so weak it does not really matter. H2O is the monster running the show.

If the atmosphere was 100% CO2 , as the gas in the bag was, the absorption of infra red energy would rise by about one thirtieth, if the figures, 315 and 305 mean anything. As one watcher has pointed out, we want to know what happens if the 0.035% of CO2 in the atmosphere is raised to 0.04%. I suspect it won't make any observable difference. The demonstrator must have a good reason not to show the more realistic version of the experiment?

@@davidlawrenson2103 Yes he does have a good reason for that... He doesn't have a chamber 100+km long! You know, to represent the thickness of the atmosphere. if 100% CO2 in just 2cm's can block 1/30 of the energy then, over 100km (5 million times the distance), but at lower concentrations we're still talking about a small but significant fraction of the energy... and as the amount of incoming energy is HUGE, a small fraction of that is still a lot of energy.

Ofcourse it would. There is more infrared absorbing gas, so more infrared gets absorbed. but over just ~2cm, and with just a hotplate the thermometer wouldn't be accurate enough to measure the difference. in real life however instead of a 2cm bag we'd be talking about at least 100km of atmosphere (5 MILLION times the distance). and instead of a hotplate we'd be talking about the sun.

There’s more CO2 in the atmosphere than plants can absorb. That’s the problem we currently have. Reducing it means the plants still have more than enough.

We need to plant more plants. Kind of strange though that the government of Holland is eradicating thousands of acres of farmland. I have some questions: 1. Besides nuclear what can replace carbon based energy? It’s certainly not solar and wind. We can’t have electricity just when the sun shines or the wind blows and batteries with the associated mining and subsequent disposal are worse for the environment than coal or oil. 2. What caused global warming in the past, before man-produced carbon based fuels? There are palm trees under the ice in Alaska. “The Arctic “would have looked very similar to the vegetation we now see in Florida,” said Appy Sluijs of Utrecht University in the Netherlands who led an international study. Evidence of palms has never been found so far north before.” Reuters There’s really only a few viable options to reduce carbon emissions…. stop buying and consuming stuff we don’t need. Live within walking or biking distance to work and groceries. Stop using air-conditioning (it’s self perpetuating). Dress warmer in winter. Stop using aviation for recreation. Eat whole, unprocessed foods. Very few are doing anything other than paying lip-service to reducing CO2. Government isn’t going to solve the problem, they’ll just make it worse.

Yes, the bag also traps infrarred (IR) light! But since we are comparing bag+air versus bag+co2, and both bags are the same type of bag, the blocking effects of each bag are made irrelevant. Matter of fact, if you want to see the effect of the bag, you can see the reading drops when either bag is placed in front of the sensor, from 350 to 315 in the bag of air, and 350 to 305 in the co2 bag. Actually, since the bag of air is presumably filled with the same air as the room,, you could argue that the 'bag of air' measurement is actually a measurement of just the effect of the plastic bag! So, it contributes to a difference of about ~35 units in the reading.

Well...he's not a scientist...so you should probably take *everything* he says with a grain of salt. He knows what's written in the script...and that's about it. That won't stop him from lecturing and preaching his agenda to anyone who will listen though smh

I just noticed it! Lame trick.

blah blah

He did

@Clifs World Because it's not about what they say it's about. The obvious is CO2 becomes a tool for governments to racketeer the people and some countries to racketeer other countries. But also, by misdirecting attention away from real pollution (chemicals, carcinogens, microplastics) Big Business gets to pollute all they want as long as they make pretend gestures about CO2 - sure it costs them money, but it costs their smaller competitors more, comparatively. So it is another tool for Big Business to defeat smaller competitors. Then donate some of that to politicians

Don't forget this was about a 2,475X increase in CO2 levels for only a 3% increase in temperature! That's an absolutely insane amount of CO2 for a small amount of increased heat. If anything this shows CO2 levels make no noticeable impact to temps on earth, since Earth's atmosphere will never be anywhere close to 99% CO2.

I try my best to educate people on how close this planet was to plant death (occurs at 150 ppm CO2, earth's CO2 crashed to 180 ppm from natural highs in the thousands) before human activity began restoring balance to the atmosphere.

I was sitting there staring at the glass jars thinking "...But glass blocks infrared light. Of course there's no difference."

It doesn't matter if the bags absorb IR light because both the air and CO2 bags use the same bag. So they will have the same amount of IR absorption from the bag so you can ignore it. As long as any interference applies to both the CO2 and the control, it can be ignored. As for pressure, until the bag is full, the gas will expand until it matches the surrounding atmosphere. So both bags should be at 1 atm.

@@syawkcab I think the bags can hold more than 1 atm. How much more? It might be close to negligible, I don't know. Depends on the strength of the materials.

I think that the experiment is apparently up for debate, when there are obviously no one who is completely satisfied with that kind of simple setup for solving such a serious problem as climate change in a lab ?

@@syawkcab how do we know the bag of co2 isn't scattering some of the IR light away from the sensor versus absorbing some of it?

try to understand the point of the video before you comment

@@irek1394 your comment seems to be an attempt to shame me, you tell me to shut up because I'm not able to understand. That's an ideological reply, not a scientific one. The point of the video was to place a commercial ad about a company, and my comment was not about that. It was about the logical flaw (from a scientific standpoint), can you spot the flaw? It extrapolates the conclusion drawn at 100% CO2, to a 0.04% CO2. How do you know at 400ppm the effect is not even stronger? :o)

@@RoGeorgeRoGeorge ... it just shows that CO2 absorbs more infrared light than air nothing more and nothing less you bringing up specific gas mixes is missing the point of the video

​@@irek1394 The title "Is CO2 Really a Greenhouse Gas?". That's why bringing the ppm, and because the video is presented as a scientific experiment when in fact the experiment was designed to prove a predetermined conclusion, that conclusion being we should give money to a climate change business. It's a paid study to prove whatever the payer is asking to demonstrate. However, you replied because the more realistic experiment I was saying might have not been able to prove your belief. You've been conditioned to be annoyed, and dismiss whatever/whoever questions the narrative, to be disgusted (maybe that's why the arrogance in your first reply). About global warming, I don't know enough to demonstrate anything about that, or if it's caused by us or by some other factors, so I won't argue about any of that, you might be right.

Yes it is, he stated that.

Kind of went off on a tangent there... yes, it is a part of the natural world, but mankind releases tons of it as well, and that isn't natural. Plus, that is only one of many atmospheric pollutants we release. I'm no eco warrior, but I have no doubt man is doing more than what a bunch of monkeys and squirrels would be doing. Stuff like the hole in the ozone was directly correlated to the now known effects of freon, which it is recovering, thankfully. So we know for sure without a doubt we are definitely able to effect the atmosphere and climate in a relativelyshort order(because a hole in the ozone layer will do that). I don't have the answers, and I don't think anyone does(except the nuts demanding a great die-off and return to hunter-gatherer living).

@@sinisterthoughts2896 Very true. My frustration comes from the mob mentality of climate change alarmist that have zero solutions to the purported unknowns. It frequently sounds like chicken little saying that the sky is falling. Much of the Green agenda began under the Clinton administration. It was called carbon credits back then. It was a way to charge everything and everyone on the planet a fee. I see the same flavor today. The population buyin to this renewed effort is easier today because of younger people. Many of us are still alive and remember the past history Very well. I personally believe in a clear and clean climate, but not at a cost that destroys the current systems and hurts people. Pollution is highly controllable today. Current technology enables complete recycling and recovery of present systems. With that being said there's no money in that so the same old drum is still beat. We need to slow down and think outside the box. Solutions are here that would not destroy our way of life.

What you talk about is accounted for. If you want there is a lot of research papers about it Im sure you can find them. In short its not about greenhouse effect being bad. Its actually good for us as it makes the Earth a livable place. The problem is if its too strong and makes the planet too hot. Its like the talk with salt being unhealthy. We actually need salt to live but the big amounts we eat are unhealthy

What comes back is the black body radiation, which depending on temperature is also somewhere in the IR.

@@landsgevaer Yes the carbon lowers the temperature also, changing the spectrum. So we cant really tell how much is being absorbed or reflected. Because if there is reflection happening, then refraction can occur also! and that would be a neat experiment.

What do you mean CO2 reflects IR. How would it do that?

@@Red.Rabbit.Resistance What do you mean by the carbon lowering the temperature?

@@Red.Rabbit.Resistance Where did you get the isea that a gas can *reflect* light?