Bill Nye Is Full of Beans: Botches CO2 Experiment

[jmotivator]

Unless they are constrained, such as by some force acting on them. Gravity, for example. Cyclic expansion and contraction of the atmosphere may well occur periods of a month and less, but that's not the same thing as a long-term trend. Since you don't appear to believe that the atmosphere has significantly expanded compared to a century ago, your objection to that aspect of the experiment shown on YouTube is irrelevant.

Or more precisely, it is the same kind of rabid propagandising against climate science and this fellow who dares to explain it as the other two comments of your post which I ignored. I just wanted to be sure

Expansion and contraction also happens on a Solar Cycle interval. Here is an article about the phenomenon.

 

[Threegoofs]

Boy, I bet you guys get really cheesed off when a kid has a volcano at a science fair filled with baking soda, red dye and vinegar.

 

[Jack Hays]

How the media distort the news: Lesson 1 — Lies by omission « JoNova

The Sydney Morning Herald carefully removed the scientific arguments from an article today. Are they afraid their readers are not smart enough to reach the “right” conclusions if exposed to the wrong information? Hey, but its only national policy and billions of dollars at stake.
Today Maurice Newman warned that we are not prepared for climate change (he’s talking about the cold kind). The Australian published his thoughts citing Archibald, Usoskin, Svensmark, Brekke, Lockwood and Curry. Their readers are apparently clever enough to handle discussions of cosmic rays and large hadron colliders.

In Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke and Lisa Cox write an article about Newman’s views, but carefully omit all of the scientific arguments, as well as the potential problems with one sided science funding and the names and credentials of the scientists he talks about. The pair do, however, find space to repeat the litany of the IPCC’s estimate of 95% “probability” (it’s hard to believe Sydney Morning Herald readers have not heard this before). They don’t mention that the IPCC estimate is a speculative and unscientific number which gets paradoxically higher as the IPCC’s predictions are proven wrong. Nor did they interview Newman and ask him his opinion of this.

 

[1750Texan]

It's not a demonstration of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Nye doesn't understand the science.

Did Nye contend that his demonstration proved any part of man-made global warming? If his sole intent was to show that CO2 would heat more quickly or absorbed heat more than ambient air how is that a failed demonstration?

The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air.

This was a claim made in the cited piece...is this theoretical or has this been proven in experimental trials?

 

[jmotivator]

Boy, I bet you guys get really cheesed off when a kid has a volcano at a science fair filled with baking soda, red dye and vinegar.

If your argument is that Bill Nye is no smarter than a 6th grader then I would have to agree with you.

 

[longview]

Did Nye contend that his demonstration proved any part of man-made global warming? If his sole intent was to show that CO2 would heat more quickly or absorbed heat more than ambient air how is that a failed demonstration?

The one I found on YouTube sure implies that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

 

[Lord of Planar]

Did Nye contend that his demonstration proved any part of man-made global warming? If his sole intent was to show that CO2 would heat more quickly or absorbed heat more than ambient air how is that a failed demonstration?



This was a claim made in the cited piece...is this theoretical or has this been proven in experimental trials?

It's a fraud.

Period.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The one I found on YouTube sure implies that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

What a hypocrite, or stupid idiot.

He says "we have to separate fact from fiction," but uses a glass container, which itself creates a greenhouse.

 

[Gringo allstar]

Bill Nye the science douche

 

[Mustachio]

Where is this experiment from Bill Nye? I think all of us would have to see the experiment and in what context it was done to judge it. Was it done recently in an attempt to argue for the existence of global warming? Or was it done 30 years ago for a children's television show?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Where is this experiment from Bill Nye? I think all of us would have to see the experiment and in what context it was done to judge it. Was it done recently in an attempt to argue for the existence of global warming? Or was it done 30 years ago for a children's television show?

It's only a few years old. I forget how long. Maybe four?

 

[longview]

Where is this experiment from Bill Nye? I think all of us would have to see the experiment and in what context it was done to judge it. Was it done recently in an attempt to argue for the existence of global warming? Or was it done 30 years ago for a children's television show?

I think this is the YouTube in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8
The Link says it came from Climate Reality, and was uploaded in 2011.

 

[Your Star]

Well, since I can't read the paper without paying 30 bucks, and that ain't happening I've got a PS4 to buy before November, I'm just going to go off of the abstract.

Also, the OP forgot this.

Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics

It seems to me by reading the abstract is that these people are not denying climate change, they are just simply saying that one of Nye's demonstrations to teach people about the affects of CO2 in our atmosphere, which is what I believe we are doing, while ends up with the right result, the mechanics don't match up. As in, yes increased CO2 does lead to an increased greenhouse effect, I mean that's just a fact, look at Venus. However the reason why CO2 gets hotter in his little demonstration is not the reason why it heats up our planet.

This doesn't mean that climate scientists are wrong, nor does it mean that Nye is a fraud. All it means is that one of his demonstrations doesn't replicate what is happening in our atmosphere accurately. Now, since his demonstration is just that, a demonstration designed to educate people about a well established scientific principle, it's really no big deal.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, since I can't read the paper without paying 30 bucks, and that ain't happening I've got a PS4 to buy before November, I'm just going to go off of the abstract.

Also, the OP forgot this.


It seems to me by reading the abstract is that these people are not denying climate change, they are just simply saying that one of Nye's demonstrations to teach people about the affects of CO2 in our atmosphere, which is what I believe we are doing, while ends up with the right result, the mechanics don't match up. As in, yes increased CO2 does lead to an increased greenhouse effect, I mean that's just a fact, look at Venus. However the reason why CO2 gets hotter in his little demonstration is not the reason why it heats up our planet.

This doesn't mean that climate scientists are wrong, nor does it mean that Nye is a fraud. All it means is that one of his demonstrations doesn't replicate what is happening in our atmosphere accurately. Now, since his demonstration is just that, a demonstration designed to educate people about a well established scientific principle, it's really no big deal.

I linked a non paywalled link to the paper in post #50, but here it is again:

http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner AJP 2010.pdf

It does mean Nye is a fraud because he misrepresents cause and effect.

 

[Your Star]

I linked a non paywalled link to the paper in post #50, but here it is again:

http://www.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner AJP 2010.pdf

It does mean Nye is a fraud because he misrepresents cause and effect.

No it doesn't. This was not an experiment designed to prove climate change, we already have those, this was designed to explain how climate change works to the masses. It's a neat little demonstration that does it's job at explaining the situation well, even if the mechanics don't work out. His point was to educate people on climate change, and he accomplished that, and still is I might add.

 

[Jack Hays]

No it doesn't. This was not an experiment designed to prove climate change, we already have those, this was designed to explain how climate change works to the masses. It's a neat little demonstration that does it's job at explaining the situation well, even if the mechanics don't work out. His point was to educate people on climate change, and he accomplished that, and still is I might add.

Ah yes. Explaining to "the masses." No one ever uses that phrasing intending to include themselves.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

No it doesn't. This was not an experiment designed to prove climate change, we already have those, this was designed to explain how climate change works to the masses. It's a neat little demonstration that does it's job at explaining the situation well, even if the mechanics don't work out. His point was to educate people on climate change, and he accomplished that, and still is I might add.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't show the greenhouse effect of a gas when the whole experiment is in a greenhouse.

The experiment is fraudulent in what it explains. Nye is either a willing accomplice in this deception, being intellectually dishonest, or he is ignorant to the sciences involved.

Do you know how and why a greenhouse works?

Do you understand the difference between a greenhouse and a greenhouse gas?

 

[Mustachio]

It's only a few years old. I forget how long. Maybe four?

I think this is the YouTube in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8
The Link says it came from Climate Reality, and was uploaded in 2011.

Thanks for the link! Yeah, so as I am not surprised to see, Bill Nye just narrated and acted in this advertisement for Al Gore. He didn't write it or produce it. He's not listed as anything other than narrator. It really is from Al Gore, or at least his foundation (although he didn't write it or produce it either).

On one hand, you could say that Bill Nye shouldn't appear in anything he doesn't stand behind and there would be some validity to that claim. On the other hand, it's obvious that they wanted to make a quick little video with the Bill Nye variety of experiment we all know so well, and expecting a scientific experiment from a 4 minute advertisement to be irrefutable is a bit of a lofty expectation. I don't have a strong opinion. I'd just say that you should always check for who is actually writing and producing these things.

 

[Mithrae]

No it doesn't.

It doesn't show the greenhouse effect of a gas when the whole experiment is in a greenhouse.

Two greenhouses, with one gas (CO2) warming more rapidly than the other (air).

 

[Lord of Planar]

Two greenhouses, with one gas (CO2) warming more rapidly than the other (air).

I was speaking of the glass jar. It alone invalidates the greenhouse effect of any gas placed inside, because glass is reflective to longwave.

 

[Mithrae]

I was speaking of the glass jar. It alone invalidates the greenhouse effect of any gas placed inside, because glass is reflective to longwave.

That depends on the type of glass. If it's the silica glass typical of laboratory equipment, it seems to have a low absorption index (>0.2) around the 16 micrometer band at which atmospheric CO2 is most effective, and zero absorption in the 2-6 micrometer range of near-IR which the experiment in question might be using. Its refractive index in those bands is about the same as for visible light. The greater temperature increase in the CO2 jar compared to the air jar obviously isn't due to that.

Optical constants of silica glass from extreme ultraviolet to far infrared at near room temperature (Page 6 of the pdf)

 

[Lord of Planar]

That depends on the type of glass. If it's the silica glass typical of laboratory equipment, it seems to have a low absorption index (>0.2) around the 16 micrometer band at which atmospheric CO2 is most effective, and zero absorption in the 2-6 micrometer range of near-IR which the experiment in question might be using. Its refractive index in those bands is about the same as for visible light. The greater temperature increase in the CO2 jar compared to the air jar obviously isn't due to that.

Optical constants of silica glass from extreme ultraviolet to far infrared at near room temperature (Page 6 of the pdf)

It simply invalidates the experiment. There isn't anything correct about the experiment, and it seems to indicate the heat capacity of the gas rather than radiative forcing.

How can anyone in there right mind claim it is valid without accounting for the other factors?

 

[Mithrae]

It simply invalidates the experiment. There isn't anything correct about the experiment, and it seems to indicate the heat capacity of the gas rather than radiative forcing.

How can anyone in there right mind claim it is valid without accounting for the other factors?

But heat capacity alone can't account for the different increase in temperatures (assuming the YouTube thermometer snapshots are actually representative). Admittedly I was wrong in post #45 and your correction in #50 was more accurate:

#50

Since we are operating under normal stable atmospheric pressure, Cp, or isobar would be correct I think. If we look for ratios regarding the mass of volume, we need to divide the atomic mass into the specific heat.

Air = 1.01/29 = 0.0348
Argon = 0.52/40 = 0.013
CO2 = 0.844/44 = 0.0192​

Going with your numbers, with equal energy into the jars we'd expect the CO2 temperature to increase by 1.8125 times the amount of the air jar; in fact we'd expect it to increase by a bit less than that, since the lid was open a bit for the CO2 hose and it'd lose some heat from convection. What the video's thermometers actually showed was an increase in the CO2 temperature by 2.176 times the the amount of the air jar (1.48C vs 0.68C).

I think we should actually be using the isochore figures though, since the experiment with the lids involves constant volume rather than constant pressure, which means we'd expect an even smaller (1.66) CO2 temperature increase over air.
Air = 0.718/29 = 0.02476
CO2 = 0.655/44 = 0.01489

So it seems heat capacity only explains about three-quarters of the difference in temperature increase: Since convection (the concern of the OP's paper) is also ruled out by the closed-lid experiment, and the same containers (whether IR-reflective or not) wouldn't produce the different results, there'd have to be something else accounting for it. CO2 near-IR absorption is the obvious and only likely explanation that I can see.



Edit: Actually with the lid ajar for the CO2 hose, perhaps it should be isochore for the air jar and isobar for the CO2 jar? If so, heat capacity explains even less of the temperature increase; c. 1.29 ratio expected, barely more than half the observed ratio. (Though again, this assumes that the YouTube thermometer snapshots are representative.)

 

[Lord of Planar]

Going with your numbers, with equal energy into the jars we'd expect the CO2 temperature to increase by 1.8125 times the amount of the air jar; in fact we'd expect it to increase by a bit less than that, since the lid was open a bit for the CO2 hose and it'd lose some heat from convection. What the video's thermometers actually showed was an increase in the CO2 temperature by 2.176 times the the amount of the air jar (1.48C vs 0.68C).

Not true. Start by converting the starting temperatures to kelvin, and look at the changes again.

I think we should actually be using the isochore figures though, since the experiment with the lids involves constant volume rather than constant pressure, which means we'd expect an even smaller (1.66) CO2 temperature increase over air.
Air = 0.718/29 = 0.02476
CO2 = 0.655/44 = 0.01489

Again, not true because the containers were not sealed air tight. If they were, the pressures would have changes as the volume remained stable. Here lies the difference in used values.

So it seems heat capacity only explains about three-quarters of the difference in temperature increase: Since convection (the concern of the OP's paper) is also ruled out by the closed-lid experiment, and the same containers (whether IR-reflective or not) wouldn't produce the different results, there'd have to be something else accounting for it. CO2 near-IR absorption is the obvious and only likely explanation that I can see.

Again, not only must we base the changes from the kelvin scale, but energy and temperature when radiative flux is involved is a fouty power function as well. See blackbody functions.

Edit: Actually with the lid ajar for the CO2 hose, perhaps it should be isochore for the air jar and isobar for the CO2 jar? If so, heat capacity explains even less of the temperature increase; c. 1.29 ratio expected, barely more than half the observed ratio. (Though again, this assumes that the YouTube thermometer snapshots are representative.)

Only if we are using sealed containers, then it may apply.

Again, kelvin and fourth power function.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The greenhouse effect of a gas cannot be simulated when it's inside of a greenhouse container...



If your numbers of just less than 20% absorption are correct (0.2 absorption index) then this alone if disqualifying the experiment.