Guest post by Bill DiPuccio, Science Teacher
Let’s face it, high school science videos can be boring and ineffective. I like my science with a twist of comic exaggeration. So I decided to produce a video with enough humor to keep the students awake, and enough depth to challenge them intellectually.
This 30 minute video on the Greenhouse Effect is the prototype for a possible new series: “Bill Scientific” (I gave it a personal imprint to infuse some warmth and presence). Unlike introductory videos which attempt to cover a broad field of knowledge in a short time, the goal of this prospective series is to drill down into specific, but pivotal, topics in the physical and earth sciences.
Rather than just spooning out information, each program would be designed around experiments (the simpler the better) that can be used to illuminate and verify crucial scientific principles. Students will see science in action and gain a better grasp of the empirical basis for scientific theories.
Of course, future programs will depend on the response from students, educators, and scientists, as well as securing funding. The “Greenhouse Effect” was shot and produced on amateur equipment and software. Despite these limitations, I believe the final product faithfully conveys the intent of series.
P.S. If you like the video, pass it on!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The idea of a video of this type is good, but the science presented is wrong, and would add to bad thinking. I only make a few comments, but much more is possible:
1) The atmosphere does redistribute the solar energy to prevent hot and cold from being as extreme as possible, but this alone is not a greenhouse effect, only storage and convection (also aided by ocean currents).
2) The Moon turns much slower than Earth to the Sun, so extreme surface heat and cold (in vacuum) are made worse by longer accumulation times.
3) The greenhous effect of actual greenhouses is caused mainly by the physical barrier of the surface trapping warm air, not just trapped long wave re radiation. The atmosphere has no physical barrier to free convection, so is different.
4) The Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by longwave radiation partial insulation combined with the lapse rate of the atmosphere (due to air pressure drop with altitude). The longwave partial insulation moves the average location of radiation to space to higher altitude, locking the average temperature of the atmosphere at that average altitude.
Make certain when you do the ‘PET bottle’ experiment, which purports to show the GHE with CO2, that you don’t use the PET bottle in the first place.
This is because most of the warming is from the increase of pressure AND the `indirect thermalisation of the pseudo-scattered IR at the bottle walls.
So, use a Mylar balloon like Nahle has,except you need to use a different thermometer than he used [an IR pyrometer which is optical depth dependent].
I think you’ll find there is no detectable direct thermalisation so the GHG-AGW effect is bunkum!
Still waiting for an explanation, why 6,000 ppm CO2 on Mars does not exhibit any measurable effect on theoretical vs practical temperature. Those 6,000 ppm should have the same overall “GH effect” as 400 ppm CO2 + thousands ppm H2O (g) here.
Oh, and the “+33K” is plain wrong.
It stopped just when it was getting interesting! And it would have been carbon monoxide that made Bill pass out from inhalation of exhaust fumes, not CO2.
It looks like part 2 and 3 were too difficult for this website. (LOL)
Nice videos. I liked them.
I’ll apologize in advance – I swear I don’t mean this as an insult:
When I read ‘Bill Scientific’, the first thought to come to me was of Bill Nye.
Lively and Beakman-ish.
Two quibbles:
The intro seems a bit cluttered. Maybe start where Rebecca says “Are you sure you know what you’re doing?”
Maybe more emphasis on the experimental parts (the car as greenhouse) and the sensory parts (you can feel that with your feet).
I’m afraid you made a serious scientific error at the begining. The reason the Earth doesn’t have the diurnal range of the Moon is the thermal capacity of the Earth’s atmosphere and to some degree the thermal capacity of the Earth’s oceans. Although you can’t really separate the two.
Otherwise, not bad, although you introduce terminology without explaining the terms.
Not bad the end needs a bit more work
Maybe it’s me, but I prefer my science more like the style Brian Cox, his boyish enthusiasm and knowledge is moreish and how many other Professors can list 9 top 40 UK hits on his CV?
Nice project. There may be mixed reviews in a classroom setting as some kids like the cheesy jokes and some will be turned off by it. It does convey the information though, so maybe it will hold their attention enough for them to pick up some of the basics of the atmospheric energy resistance in the IR spectrum (ok, we call it the greenhouse effect.)
Liked it very much!
The ending was a bit abrupt. I think that could have been spread out a bit. Very impressive overall, though!
There is no lid on earth, that´s the difference.
2% of 5% = 0.1% of the greenhouse effect caused by humanity’s fossil fuel combustion
Nice to see some facts presented for a change instead of hype. Loved the line about the glass sphere around the world. A lot of people really think there is some kind of sphere of CO2 ‘up there’ for which we are responsible. With ignorance-as-fact promoted by ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ abounding I will take Bill Scientific hands down over Suzuki as a source of knowledge.
CBC, are you listening? (Can you improve their accents?)
I like it
Watched all 3 parts – not bad – author stays away from the politics (mostly).
I had to pick out the links for parts 2 and 3 from the list. here are the YouTube web links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Unfortunate that the author is named Bill – He chose the name Bill Scientific for these reasonable links. He could easily be confused with similarly named “Bill the (non)- Science Guy”, who has recently been more an advocate than a scientist.
Makes the standard error most naif folk do. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Real_greenhouses
Could someone please show me the calculations, based on Radiative Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics and Quantum Chemistry/Spectroscopy, that shows the CO2 molecule to have the radiative properties and capacities to behave as stated under the temperature and pressure our atmosphere can provide for it? Responsible for 5 to 26% of the atmospheric thermostatic regulation of temperature??? Prove it to me please…
The 3 videos had a lot of positive and fun ways to explain things to Highscool students though… 🙂
Very good presentation. Packs a lot into 30 minutes. Brian Cox would have taken at least nine hours to cover the same material. There would have been 30 minutes of Brian Cox gazing at one single cloud, and the BBC would have called that “Science”.
I think the Thermo-Slayer types rushed to judgement without watching the 30 minutes series, which is why they were first to comment.
@AnotherPhilC
LMAO, agreed
AnotherPhilC says:
April 27, 2012 at 6:48 am
“Brian Cox would have taken at least nine hours to cover the same material.”
That’s not true, he covers a lot in a fue minutes here. lol
From the video: “…and clouds can push that number even higher”
The subject of clouds as a positive forcing is controversial.
Really good Bill, that took a lot of time.
The part about clouds was very important because it is almost never discussed.
Here is the Modtran downwelling radiation in the Tropics when low cloud cover is present. A perfect blackbody – no CO2 lines, no methane lines, just a blackbody. Now how often is cloud cover is present. How does it change with differing heights and thickness of clouds.
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/295/tropicalsurfupclouds2xc.gif