The Science, the Who, the Why

ThyArt Website BOOKS - MINDS YouTube Facebook Twitter

     Topic Specific
     Bad Science
      Page 396 of 411
NOAA and Bill Nye 2 Liter Bottle Foolery
Tim of ThyArt   06 Mar 2019 / updated: 06/Mar/2019

Synopsis of the 2 liter bottle Proof of Greenhouse Gas Effect: The experiment is real simple, fill one bottle with air the other with carbon dioxide, then put a light / heat source to the bottles to see which one over the course of the experiment gets warmer. The biggest fail of these experiments is the glass on the bulb will remove most if not all infrared in the range the Earth emits IAW Planck's blackbody theories, followed by the container of glass or plastic would also block any remaining infrared that in the spectrum that carbon dioxide absorbs. This experiment has nothing to do with the greenhouse gas effect.

With the amount of money involved in climate change rhetoric, the ignorance of these scientists in places such as NASA, NOAA, and the EPA are involved in what may be one of the biggest money crimes put upon the whole of humanity ever. These are trusted government employees and scientist paid from tax dollars, indicating involvement in criminal activity. Many have joined this foolery including Bill Nye and Myth Busters. The concern is that if we cannot trust the ones creating the new technology then we as humanity are in serious trouble concerning progression and compassion.

Adolf Hitler - I will never educate the seniors but I will always, always, train the youth.

Tim LeClair - They dictate desired change at 30 year goals through training of the child.

This experiment comes from NOAA’s website. There have been many variations of this experiment NASA, universities, scientific organizations, by professors, many other people, YouTube, Myth Busters, and even our famous Bill Nye the Science Guy. This experiment has been since removed by NOAA but remains on many other websites.

This experiment became the choice of teachers and professors to teach children the affects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, convincing them that increasing carbon dioxide will increase the Earth’s overall temperature. While the results prove that CO2 at near 100% content will cause an increase in retained heat, it fails the science of reality and displays the ignorance of all involved. This experiment is not only a failure but actually back fires and indicates that doubling CO2 will actually increase the cooling effect of the atmosphere. Many have dissected this experiment doing a poor quality job in proving it is invalid concerning its purpose and the claimed conclusion. Some of the websites supporting the Climate Change rhetoric have demanded this lesson to be removed from the educational system's curriculum as it is flawed and is now an embarrassment and counterproductive to their climate change effort.

(1) The basics of the experiment is taking two 2 liter bottles filling one with carbon dioxide and the other one with just normal air, put an energy source on them, and see which bottle the temperature rises more over a period of time; fairly simple. The purpose supposedly is to show that CO2 absorbs infrared and retains it as heat in the atmosphere causing an increase in overall global temperature. (2) Therefore, it is important to dissect the components of the experiment, explain the various heat sources, which would include the filament, the glass on the bulb, the gas inside the bottle, the gas outside the bottle, and the walls of the bottle absorbing heat for a full understanding of how the experiment functions. All these become factors in the results of the experiment and are important to any conclusions.

(1) Many have done this experiment including one YouTuber that put the results in a graph to them as positive proof of a greenhouse effect. The graph seems to be accurate complying with real science (it is too bad he did not bother figuring out the science producing the results), so we will talk about that chart later. (3) Many entities are creating lesson plans of this experiment for students to include primary, secondary, and college students. It is sad when children become the victim of foolery. (2) What is more sad is when someone well respected who seems to enjoy spreading science to children such as Bill Nye the Science Guy also is proven as involved in this foolery and attaches himself to the lies.

Since the whole scare on carbon dioxide is about the absorption of infrared radiation, it is important to show that CO2 absorption within this experiment is irrelevant in comparison to the absorption of earth's infrared by CO2 in the atmosphere. (1) To make this clear it is important to cover the basics of the Planck’s curves for each of the light bulbs and the absorption percent of the various materials. The top of the chart displays the power put out by various light bulbs, with the bottom being no power. The far left is the edge of visible light in the red region and the far right (yellow) is in the infrared region where the surface of the earth emits infrared. The halogen lamp is extremely bright to the eyes as it puts out a great amount of power in the visible light area, while the incandescent lamp puts out more infrared heat and orange yellow light, and the heat lamp producing mostly heat in the form of near infrared. The only infrared produced that is close to that of the earth is from the outer glass of the lamp. (2) None of the sources emit much infrared in the area of concern, the yellow area where the earth emits infrared and the blue spike in the area being the area that CO2 absorbs in this range. The heat from the outside glass of the bulb contributes more than is coming directly from the radiating source in the bulb. (3) The earth's infrared power emitted is extremely less than that of a light bulb per area, making this experiment extremely over exaggerated.

We must also evaluate the surface material of the containers used in the experiment. (1) The chart displays the materials used in this experiment's ability to absorb and block radiation from visible light to the infrared emitted by the earth. At the top of the chart, the radiation is unable to pass through the material, while the bottom, the material is transparent like the glass of the window in a typical house. The materials in concern are glass, such as used in the Bill Nye narrated experiment, and also the PET (polyethylene terephthalate) which is the plastic used in the 2 liter soda bottles. It must be made clear that CO2 is a gas and takes meters of distance to have effective absorption while solids most absorption is immediately happening at the contact surface. (2) Glass will absorb all the infrared in the range of CO2 absorption in the area earth emits at, leaving none for the CO2 in Bill Nye’s demonstration. Bill Nye narrated this experiment using glass jars (thick glass jars), which is a humorous fail. Concerning PET, if one takes an infrared thermometer and puts a heat source on the other side of a 2 liter bottle that is empty they will find that the infrared is completely absorbed by just the walls of the PET plastic bottle. The device reads the temperature of the bottle instead of the heat source; therefore, it is noted, the plastic bottles also block out all the infrared.

To dissect the experiment into what truly is happening one must find means of determining the heat capacity of the gases, and the thermal conductance. Understanding these two alone will explain what is happening in this experiment. NOAA means to add CO2 to the bottle causes the bottle to have water in them, which also degrades the results.

While CO2 has a lower specific heat the molecular weight of CO2 is much heavier resulting in that 2 liters of CO2 weighs more requiring more energy to raise the bottle one degree in temperature; approximately 34 percent more energy. Concerning thermal conductivity, CO2 is less conductive with thermal conductance rated at 0.016 compared to normal air at 0.024. That means that heat transfers slower within CO2, as well as to and from CO2; the rate of transfer of heat energy in air is 60 percent faster than CO2.

The most ignored principle of this experiment is that heated molecules rise upward. This is the scientists’ primary ignorance in the Climate Change rhetoric. This experiment contains the air and actually if sealed will increase the pressure inside the bottles when the seltzer tablet dissolves and as the temperature increases. This containment prevents the air from naturally convecting and allowing the heat to rise as what happens with all heated molecules in the atmosphere. This experiment primarily becomes about getting the heat to the walls of the bottle, which has a ten times higher heat transfer rate than the air, from there the heat is transferred to the air outside the bottle. With energy being added by the lamp, eventually the energy being removed will equal the energy being added and the temperature of the bottle will stabilize and remain constant.

(1) We start the experiment by turning the light on and things start to heat up. First the glass on the light bulb heat, the walls to the bottles start heat up, even the thermometer will absorb some energy; and if experiment involves water, also the water. (2) The temperature will rise seemingly fairly even at first, this is due to the fact that CO2 requires more energy to raise the temperature, while the air bottle takes less energy but the extreme thermal conductivity at first balances this out.

(1) As experiment comes to a conclusion, the energy being lost will eventually equal the energy being put into the specimens. The CO2 will have a higher temperature and hold more energy because the air bottle will be losing energy at a faster rate unable to obtain the temperature of the CO2 bottle when they both reach equilibrium of input and output energy. Note that the CO2 bottle takes longer to reach the maximum temperature; this is because it requires more energy to reach that temperature. Increasing CO2 will lower the temperature of the earth for it takes more energy to heat it. CO2 absorbs most of the infrared energy in its absorption range from the earth within 300 meters altitude, so quadrupling CO2 will not increase the energy in the atmosphere any at all.

Conclusion: The chart provided by the YouTuber seems to match the laws of physics and the CO2 bottle does sustain a higher temperature. The problem is the CO2 is reaching nearly 1,000,000 ppm in this experiment, which is 2500 times more than what is in the atmosphere. The thermal conductance of air is near directly proportional to the percentage of the gases, this would make CO2 in the atmosphere only able to change the transfer of energy at around .04% or .08% with double the CO2. At 400 ppm for CO2 in the atmosphere, there is only an increase of .01% CO2, which would have no effect on the transfer of energy in the atmosphere. Concerning the storage of extra energy due to higher heat capacity while one might figure it would add that .01%, that is incorrect as would be replacing molecules within the atmosphere that also have a heat capacity, and it would only be the difference between CO2 and the molecule it replaces. With more CO2 in the air there would be a slight increase in heat capacity meaning it would take more energy to raise the temperature just 1°C, hence it would actually cool the atmosphere since CO2 is already at saturation point for 99.5 percent of the infrared that CO2 absorbs. Therefore, CO2 itself will not add any more energy to the atmosphere. Another fact that this experiment does not consider is the importance of molecular freedom within the atmosphere, which was completely restricted within the bottle. This prevents the molecules of gas within the bottle from convection upward as molecules heated rise immediately. Their foolery is the extreme amount of CO2 in the experiment could never be a reality in the atmosphere, containment of the gas in the experiment prevents an immediate upward convection of heated molecules, and total ignorance that the experiment has no relation to the infrared region emitted by the surface of the Earth.

 Another important fact that this experiment proves is that gas molecules are poor emitters of infrared including carbon dioxide. If the carbon dioxide were emitting infrared in any significant amount, that energy would be immediately transmitted and absorbed by the walls of the container, increasing the energy output of the carbon dioxide specimen, while the air specimen is mostly nitrogen and oxygen which are noted as non-emitters of infrared at the temperature of this experiment. Simply the Infrared emitted by the CO2 provides no noticeable effect of reducing the CO2 specimen’s temperature.

What is not so funny is to watch little children performing this experiment and absorbing all the lies that go along with it and the bad science of thinking this has something to do with the greenhouse effect. With that becomes the belief in a lie of Climate Change rhetoric of which these children have nothing but trust for these educators, professors and teachers with confidence in the information provided is correct. This experiment is a disgrace to the teachers, the professors, and the scientists.

Failure of Myth Busters demonstration: First duplicating their efforts is not possible as they failed to mention many of the physical aspects of the experiment. A primary concern is the percentage of the gases in each specimen. In the CO2 specimen, was it 100%, 7.351%, or 0.08%? Was the methane at 0.8%? Again is the fact these stage lights operate mostly in the visible light region and near infrared, along with the glass bulb and the thickness of the plastic of the containers would again remove most if not all of the infrared in the range that the Earth emits and that carbon dioxide absorbs of this range. Myth Busters on many occasions have shown ignorance to the real science and cause defining their results. The ice statues designed to melt would also have an effect on the experiment. Concerning the methane, without having the details of the experiment, it is impossible to honestly determine the science behind the results. Myth Busters is just entertainment, nothing more. As seems common with these experiments of Climate Change foolery, bring a child in on the foolishness.

Summary: carbon dioxide in the sub 0.1% quantities has no ability to either decrease the thermal conductive the air or significantly increase the amount of energy stored within the atmosphere. Maybe around one percent or 10,000 ppm, carbon dioxide could make a slightly noticeable effect, but is unrealistic and will never happen. The experiment unlike the claims of the NOAA, NASA, scientist, and universities, has nothing to do with greenhouse gas effect. The experiment is nothing but over exaggeration. This would be comparable to putting a person in a tank with 100% water causing them to drown. Then saying this is proof that doubling the water vapor in the air would cause everybody to drown. Neither 400 ppm nor 800 ppm is close to 1,000,000 ppm. This is fools play, and they are playing it on little children through the teachers that they trust to guide them correctly. More CO2 in the atmosphere due to its higher heat capacity would require more energy into the atmosphere to raise it to a higher in temperature. There is no more energy added to the earth just by increasing CO2, so the result is actually a cooling effect. Then they dare to compare earth's atmosphere to Venus's atmosphere, which only a moron would do since the mass of Venus's atmosphere is 93 times that of Earth's and contains 95% CO2 (950,000ppmv unlike Earth at just 400ppmv).

Final Note: This experiment is a fraud in the way educators and scientists claim it as proof of what carbon dioxide does in the atmosphere. That failed proof is that if carbon dioxide is increased in the atmosphere that the overall temperature of the Earth will also increase, this leading to many consequences. As the child accepts this experiment as valid to the teacher’s claim, it validates the fear mongering to follow, such as ice melting everywhere, polar bear extinction, sea level rise, and super hurricanes. While some of these may be happening for other reasons, it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activities. The fact is this experiment is often a lie presented by someone the audience trusts, which is why it is a fairly serious concern.

Share on facebook Share on facebook

     Topic Specific
     Bad Science
      Page 396 of 411

Member's Input:   - Comments Restricted
no comments

Treason Presentation
Topic Specific
  Cycles of Climate
  Scientists / Consensus
  United Nations / Agenda 21
  CO2 and Climate Change
  Water / Atmosphere
  Worthless Temperature
  Greenland / Antarctica
  Sea Level Rise
  Ocean Acidification
  Storms and Disasters
  Renewable Damages
  The Cost to Everyone
  Bad Science
  Entities of Climate Change
  Fraud / Lies / Ignorance
  Friend or Foe
  Spreading the Truth
Faces of Climate Change

All Material and website design are Copyright of ThyArt Network LLC 2014 - 2020