'The TRUTH about carbon dioxide' BUSTED
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2017
- Just watched it and it really pushed sooo many buttons when he says 'co2 is a tasteless odourless gas'
original video
• The Truth about CO2 | ...
I just kinda threw this together so I wont be adding this to the patreon supported stream.
For those who want to support this channel directly, you can do it through Patreon:
/ thunderf00t - Розваги
Give a man a match, he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life
His short life.
Give a pyromaniac a match, a random persons house will be warm for 20-30 minutes
@@arsenictoxin6415 sign me up for free heating. Fire is naturally occurring, so how can it he bad?
FUCK, that's so deep and profound,😍.
That was an unexpectedly awesome comment 😂
Glucose is what gives us energy; therefore, drinking a litre of corn syrup is the healthiest thing anyone could do.
Pladimir Vutin energy yo
Alex Martinez ENERGY!
BITCH!
Jim Morrison let's go inject that sweet corn syrup energy homie.
We do. Its called Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew ect.
Humans are destroying the planet, therefore, we should all go suck off a shotgun.
Hey, Cyanide is found in extremely small amounts in apple seeds, right? It comes from the environment, which makes it organic. It’s organic, so it must be good for us!
Its, "natural", like botulism, so it must be good for you! I really like actresses that put jade balls up their snatch ...
@@gohibniugoh1668 have you still got the link to that video? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yuh, by this logic, we should pump tonnes of fluoride in the water supply. It's found in OUR BONES!!! It's NATURAL!!
@frank brown hes being facetious, so....
Tasty Loaf **ahem** Let’s add chlorine in the mix. Salt is made from the stuff.
Ignore that pesky thing called chemistry 😉
[Wikipedia about CO2]:
Odor
Low concentrations: none
High concentrations: sharp; acidic
Everything is sufficiently low concentration is odorless and tasteless.
@@debasishraychawdhuri Farts disagree.
Jokes aside, even our shitty nose (compared to most other mammals out there) can pick up sulfur dioxide, since it stinks in low concentrations and is deadly in high concentrations.
@@Kain987 I said sufficiently low concentration. If you can smell it, dilute it 10 times, continue until you cannot smell it.
The problem with smelling carbon dioxide is that it forms carbonic acid on contact with water and it is the carbonic acid that gives soda drinks their sharp taste. There is no way to "smell" carbon dioxide in your nose without it forming carbonic acid.
@@thomasmaughan4798 So it's odorless and tasteless to people without saliva nor mucus. Cause everyone is going to have some form of water in their mouths or nose
We are mostly water, so how can being submerged in water for prolonged times with no oxygen be bad for us?
Better yet: Water is about 8/9 by weight Oxygen!
Well, water's made from oxygen, so obviously if you try hard enough, you'll be able to breathe in the water, and survive indefinitely.
Gordon Freeman if only these PragerU guys would try.
Gordon Freeman This is what they should teach in schools!
Gordon Freeman? Wait what? You can speak?
I find it funny that I had to watch an ad from PragerU before i could watch this video.
"Humans need water, they can still drown in it"
--Doctor Who
Homeless man snorts carbon dioxide in the name of science
Water is essential for life as we know it, so drowning is a hoax. Mr. Moore should start living with the fish.
Radiation is perfectly natural, therefore it is completely healthy and the more you get the better!
That Guy
In the early part of the 20th century 'patent medicine' companies sold ceramic water cooler cisterns which contained Uranium in the clay. They were marketed as 'health promoting.'
Fortunately they weren't terribly efficient at leeching Uranium into the water.
Ilpo Oksanen yep and oxygen is what kills our bodies so we should all hold our breath.
We need oxygen to live. That's why I'm sure an atmosphere of pure oxygen can only make us stronger.
Wow
Water is also essential to all life, so drowning is good.
cristop5 Haha, water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas. However, water vapor can only rise within a warmer atmosphere. By this Prager guy's logic more water vapor is great for Earth! :/
Dihydrogen Monoxide kills thousands every year! We need to ban it!
Thanks! you're correct...
not to mention its poisonous and no seriously drink too much of it in a day without any food or smth different and you can get sick as i can testify, it fucking sucks you want to drink SOMETHING but you keep vomiting whatever you take in over and over to the point that eventually you will start vomiting blood and die
Yes, and oxygen is necessary for humans AND wildfires. So let it burn baby!
Just checked the Wikipedia in August 2022, and it actually says:
- "It has a sharp and acidic odor and generates the taste of soda water in the mouth, but at normally encountered concentrations it is odorless."
So hey, at least that part is more accurate now!
CO2, its what plants crave.
HahahAhah. HAHAHa!
You're killing me! LOL
And here I was thinking it was electrolytes
Fr? Shit I thought it was doritos
You've won the internet for the past 10 months good sir.
Too much CO2 will affect human cognition and literally create what Idioicracy was warning us about. Really scary stuff. :-/
Water is essential for life! Therefore I think we all should move to live under water.
Water intoxication is actually a thing already, as is oxygen intoxication . Nothing is so good that we can take it in vast amounts. We need a combination of things to live and those things must be balanced properly.
You know ... taking a lot of smart people and building a self sufficient city underwater doesn't sound all that bad. We could call it ... Rapture
MrRolnicek than murder each other lol
haha! this comment is perfect to adress the blatant nonsense on the right side these days
let's first make a test about the hypothesis that if water is essential to life, then more water is better for life. I guess about 4 minutes should suffice, provided Mr. Moore can find some time to attend the experiment between his paid lying - lobby speaches :-)
The sun is essential for life, so lets move there. Also solar roadways would actual produce power!
The Workshop you're a Genius!
The Workshop But then you would have to install them upside down.
The Workshop solar roadways on the sun. Brilliant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
Electroflame, I remember a video on new sightings of this possibly. I'll find the link...www.ted.com/talks/tabetha_boyajian_the_most_mysterious_star_in_the_universe/discussion
Carbon *monoxide* is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas. I think they got them mixed up LMAO
They are both colorless tasteless odorless gasses, carbon dioxide just reacts in your nose and mouth to create... You guessed it. Carbonic Acid. Making it a chemically different substance that in turn has smell and taste.
we really should have more CO
it'll greatly help the environment
I mean it's tasteless, odorless and colorless so what can it do
CO2 is ordorless that's a chemical reaction forming carbonic acid in your nose
They both are
At the levels that result in respiratory distress, both gases are not detectable by humans. Both gases are detectable at high concentrations. Safety dictates that you tell people they won't smell the problem before it can kill them.
Thunderfoot is the only guy I can think of who'd think to stick a regulator on a soda-stream canister.
Loads of ppl do it for aquascaping actually. But I do get when you mean 😂
"but how can something that makes life possible be bag?"
You should try drinking 10 gallons of water in one sitting. Why won't you? It's not like it could hurt you! Water is good!
Be sure that the water is deionized too. Water is good for us, so having it in its pure form should be even better right?
Sodium essential to a healthy body. I'll start feeding bags of it to my kids; should boost their health no end!
Kids also need sugars though! Let's feed them bags of sugar too! Diabetes is just a lie created by the government to mask how beneficial it is!
It's all very well worrying about packing enough sugar down their throats, but what about the ten pounds of iron filings they'll be consuming on a daily basis? Wouldn't want them missing out on their iron intake right?
payton richards this would be good analogy. except for the fact plants dont have the same problem.
Electrolytes, it's what the plants crave.
IT GOT ELECTROLYTES!!!
Psh, I bet you guys want to put toilet water on plants. Idiots.
do people even get this reference anymore......i feel so at home at this comment section
The movie is one of the most realistic worst-case representations I have seen so far about the future of humanity.
Even being so, the execution was very poor and shallow to my standards, but as a whole, eye opening nonetheless.
It's like a monster truck . . .that you pour into your face!
CO2 is oderless. The acidic "smell" is just pain transmitted through the Trigeminus nerve. Smells get transmitted through Olfactory nerv
So the human body can smell pain now?
it’s smell is burning you so that’s what they’re referring to
Its similar to the taste we call "hot/spicy".
but you can still sense it then
As a chemist,
CO2 is an odourless gas man..... at such high concentrations it's REACTING in your nose to form carbonic acid, you aren't smelling anything, it's literally BURNING you. In a super dry environment you'd smell nothing.
Anyway, there's quite a few gases we should worry more about....like methane and frankly water vapour in general, they absorb WAY more infra-red than CO2 (not saying CO2 isn't itself potent still). Basically we're already on thermal runaway, and a big part of that is moreso landfills than anything else. And it isn't quite too late...even if the earth is getting hotter the rate of flux will go up too, we just need to give equilibrium a chance to actually catch up.
But that's us stopping putting gases in the atmosphere yesterday, so basically....this IS the new normal guys.
If you think about the entire life cycle of carbon as a fuel, it HAS provided a lot more benefits than drawbacks...but I mean, it's simply time to stop.
Excellent point about CO2 being odorless! And you are also correct about water vapor. You can easily measure the difference in air temperature on an hourly basis due to the presence or absence of water vapor (i.e. clouds). Maybe we should cover all the rivers, lakes and oceans with plastic to prevent water vapor from getting into the atmosphere! Also good point about equilibrium of CO2 in the environment. The more we put into the atmosphere the more plants will thrive and the more CO2 that will be removed from the atmosphere locked up in the form of plant matter or algae in the sea. So many global warming alarmists forget these basic 8th grade science facts because they want to push an agenda. Keep in mind the Earth was much hotter 50 million years ago and man was not even around burning fossil fuels. So today's temperatures are well within normal fluctuations. It's a bit embarrassing hearing Thunderf00t (supposedly a scientist) get some basic facts wrong. I like some of his videos but he's missing the mark on this one. If anyone is interested in hearing the sane truth about global warming I would be happy to post some excellent links.
A nose is not a super dry environment, it's wet by design. But I agree that a 0.5% concentration doesn't smell.
Additionally, many companies will deliberately add chemicals that smell to these gases so that we can detect when there is a leak.
@@theroboticscodedepot7736, let's see some sources bud.
Because last I checked we have isotopic data that gives us temperature data for millions of years, ice-core data that gives us atmospheric composition data for the last several hundred-thousand years, fossilized stomata data (concentration) that can give us insight on atmospheric co2 concentration for millions of years....
And modern tracking of temperature and atmospheric composition.
We have tracked temperature changes and atmospheric composition changes for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and direct observational data for current history.
Our earth is currently warming IN CONJUNCTION with a rise in [CO2] faster than ever before in recorded history.
Which is a long fucking time.
I don't care if you are a chemist, or a PhD. These findings are based on stringent research. If you deny that, or call the (well developed and conserved) methods used into question, you are an idiot.
But please. Let's see some sources.
Aren't all smells a result of chemicals reacting with the chemicals in your nose to send signals to your brain? (Not an expert just asking)
100% of people that drink water in their life dies.
Patrick Moore Please help us.
If one was an idiot, they'd believe that not drinking water will save 'em. Darwin Award winning logic. :D
Well one more reason to not drink water is that it is proven that Hitler and Stalin drank water, as well as atleast 90% of schoolshooters or more.
100% of people that live during some point in their life die.
100% of people that die during some point of their life die.
Patrick Moore, please help us
Jimmy Gudo. The is a dangerous chemical in what you drink everyday. An estimated 100% of people who ingest this substance, called dihydrogen monoxide, will die.
Also, Glucose is said to be 50x more addictive than cocaine, yet It's in everything you eat!
Potholer and Thundef00t tackling this bullshit in the same week?
What a gift
Potholer is back? last time I checked in on him he seemed to be inactive although that was a couple of years back.
He's been wrecking Crowder for the past week, who backed out of a debate when Potholer asked him how he'd misrepresented him.
I'm going to have to check out this potholer vid... skeptic's response to crowder was weak as fuck.
GruntBurger yup Armored wasn't the strongest in that one but that was because he wasn't grabbing Crowder to the source of his bs (and a wayyy too long bad intro). Luckily we got potholer coming straight to the point, showing coward who's boss (in the scientific way ofc).
Potholer had 2 videos out in this week. TWO!! It's a godsend if gods existed.
8:02 I spat my water out lmao
"There are already heat on earth so heat can't be bad!" Okay fine give him 14 days on the sun.
"It is natural then it can't be bad!" Fine Acid are natural, go dive in an acid lake, it is healthy for you! :-)
The word 'shill' is severely overused by people all over the political spectrum these days, but Patrick Moore is a world-class shill. It's exceptional that he's managed to poison the environmental debate from both sides though, I'm impressed
I remember when GP was a tool of the oil and coal companies to shit can nuclear. Now this prick has gainful employment trash talking global warming and pushing this bullshit Green Earth propoganda
Not just evil: he’s Super Evil
Sure, Al "Hockey-stick" Gore is way more credible ;D
julenissen yeah the one that was found not to be very wrong at all?
@@julenissen5237 Al Gore was one of Roger Revelle's students in the 1960s, so we know he's taken at least one more climate science course than you have.
I'm just thinking out loud here. Wouldn't the acidic taste and smell be due to CO2 dissolving in the moist in your mouth and nose, turning into carbonic acid?
As such it would be impossible to know if CO2 actually has taste and/or smell.
Laserunicorn fair enough but I suppose that goes for a lot of aromas
Gee, I wonder why we can't smell the co2 that we exhale. Fail.
Maybe because it is not pure and it is in low concentration.
Our brain is quite good in filtering unnecessary information, for this reason, things that remain constant fade into the background over time, for example, you stop hearing a low pitched humming after view minutes, in favor of voices. So a taste or smell which you are confronted on the same level since birth will be filtered out completely because it's unnecessary information.
Laserunicorn true ... But that's how taste works ... Semantically it's impossible to say what something tasty of, except by offering it up to your mouth?
that taste/odor is carbonic acid I thought you'd know that.
Are you sure? When you dissolve CO2 in water, less than 1 % will be in the carbonic acid from.
Table salt is tasteless by the same logic
To address the misconception that trees are the most important method to reverse carbon emissions Parrie plants are more resourceful than a tree, the extremely deep root systems maintain a negative impact on the total co2 input and output of the ecosystems, this causes the mass of the plant dead or alive to stay out of the atmosphere. However, wood for example rots on the surface of the forest floor this causes (what I can rember from a collage class citation needed) 30% of a avarage tree's weight in carbon is deposited semi permanently into the soil. As for the other 70% that is exhaled by fungi bacteria and invertabre in a woodland ecosystem.
The answer besides trees? There are rapid growing plants such a lemma minor or duckweed and some aglees that are a candidate for mass carbon Reclamation efforts.
we have a unmet need in the stem field for ecological engineering man made constructions to regulate our planets atmospheric gases. For example massive shallow beds of airated water capped by a plastic membrane to control the spread of potentially invasive 'exponential growers' (let's use duckweed for this example) the harvested biomass then needs to be pyrolized or buried and used as a agricultural soil ammendment or other similar uses. This needs to be an effort on a massive global scale if we wish to maintain human life on our planet.
Wouldn't ocean seeding be a far quicker and economical method?
Algae, Plankton and the like grow very quick and just need the nutrients, which you can spread via ships over a large area.
I really don't see why it has to be an expensive solution, you can do global solutions relatively cheaply. Large scale doesn't have to be large cost.
That article was informative... but extremely biased.
It always seems weird to call people with doctorates idiots but when it has quotes like this in it.
""There's only a limited amount of total nutrients in the oceans. So if there's greater use in one area, it seems you'd have lesser concentrations in other areas,"
Except we know where that current goes, and roughly how long it takes to get there, which means you can add nutrients there 1-2 centuries from now. Because there isn't a limited amount of nutrients once we start adding nutrients. And if its monitored, you'd know exactly when that water with less nutrients rises, and just add more.
They also question how well it will permanently sequester CO2 but no bio solution permanently sequesters more then a fraction of CO2 used by plants.
One of the known side effects of ocean seeding is more fish... Which is good because we have a massive over fishing problem.... This doesn't solve it but it would help.
Though don't get me wrong, there's no reason to pick only one idea, we can still do more trees and I won't complain unless someone wants to do it in an unfeasible way.
10:25 "How can something that makes life possible, be bad?"
That's a good point sir, and in reply I can only offer you an oxygen mask feeding 40 liters per minute. You may also drink ten gallons of water and eat a bowlful of table salt.
Maybe he could just breath more CO2 himself, closed in his sealed car.
Why not just a mask feeding pure carbon dioxide? He seems to like the stuff a lot.
Everything in moderation... the question is how do you decide what is bad. Certainly Co2 can't be bad if we can't live without it, as we are in a web of life that requires co2.
As you just said, everything in moderation.
well he did also say that without it, life would die.
Which thunderfoot never addressed, rather he did the same as you and made the statement that too much would kill you.
We all know too much of things can kill you, but too little can also.
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless gas that is odorless at *normally encountered concentrations*.
source: wikipedia
You see how it says its odorless in low concentrations?
If you read further down it says:
Low concentrations: none
High concentrations: sharp; acidic
Doesn't matter, In the video PU should have said that aswell then.
There was misinformation.
Pete the Paper Boat if you realized the context you would under stand that CO2 is colorless odorless and tasteless in the concentration in our atmosphere
As someone who owns a soda maker I have been blasted in the face with CO2 before while disconnecting the hose and it is not a pleasant experience
Mike Loeven yes in high concentration
CK Lim carbonic acid is HCO3 or hydrogen carbonate which is a acid CO2 is completely different
"How can something that makes life possible be bad?" Uh ... *Gestures to all the people who drown*
This is a level of ignorance I cannot even fathom.
what happens to a greenhouse if you make the glass thicker?
Isn't technically carbonic acid what you smell when inhaling CO2?
Yes, so technically the gas doesn't have a smell or taste but you can still smell and taste if it's there.
The gas itself has no taste or scent though. You're tasting/smelling the result of a chemical reaction, not the actual chemicals.
by the same logic, EVERYTHING is tasteless and EVERYTHING is odorless, because what you're registering as taste or odor is always "just" a product of a chemical reaction in your nostrils / on your tongue, and not the actual chemicals.
Crazy Wolfgang Hay Wolfgang what you got for sale!
+EngieCat No actually that's not true. The basic difference is that when you smell strawberry, for example, you are smelling the actual chemical released when someone chops up a strawberry in it's standard form. When you smell CO2, you aren't smelling the CO2 gas, but the Carbonic Acid that is created when the CO2 interacts with the moisture in your nose. Ergo, if you have had a cold and have a runny nose, the CO2 will smell stronger than if you have excessively dry sinuses. In the latter case, you may not smell anything at all, which is the difference.
humans need water! therefore inhaling water has no negative consequences!
Go ahead, inhale water in liquid form. Maybe ice (i.e., water in solid form).
Hey Thunderf00t, would it be possible/feasible to adjust the atmosphere by changing the index of refraction between carbon dioxide and its surrounding gas?
I got a PragerU ad at the beginning of this video.
After that video Patrick Moore went home and ate a bowl of salt.
Of course ,it's essenssial to life ... LOL !!!!
He drowned himself in the bathtub. Water is essential to life, too.
After this video Patrick Moore realized that when you question a leftist dogma, leftists will call you a "moron" without a valid argument.
Opinion Pole The video was a valid argument...
Opinion Pole dude, you can do the calculations with high school math and chemistry. It's not fucking hard to understand.
Science denial always boils my blood!
Let that be a lesson to you, kids: don't watch youtube inside a vacuum chamber!
Mine gets boiled and it reaches my head, NOT a good thing at all.
Also it's PragER, not Praga
Млъкни Петре.
but ... but muh alternative fact
TF's videos are like watching an anime where you cut to a flashback of something that only just happened
That's the same dude who says you can drink roundup but then doesn't when presented some
The "smell" of C02 you are noticing is likely the effect of its vapor as it changes from a liquid (in the bottle) to gas. The definition of odor (and odorless) is complicated and changes depending on who you ask. The are several chemicals generally considered odorless that many people say they can smell. Taste is similarly difficult to define.
Exactly correct. Notice how its temporary, its transitional. Carbon Monoxide poisonings occur for exactly this reason, because that (similar) gas is completely undetectable.
But listen. He said it's organic. And green. So case closed, that's good, right?
Maybe it's also tolerant. And advertiser friendly. Go CO2!
Benzene is also organic! Better go buy some online and consume it, if it's organic it must afterall be good for you!
I know you are kidding, but I realy hate prople using "organic" as a positiv buzzword.
Organic is also the Clostridium botulinum (the bacteria creating botolinum toxin) this is a bacterium which naturally occurs in honey which adults and children can kill with thei stomach acid, but infants can't. So feeding honey to a younger than a year old infant could kill him no matter how "organicly" produced it is.
AlberichLP yeah, great example. There were a few instances where a few dozen people died of "organic" food, but not a single person ever died of genetically modified food. Now guess which one of them is praised as safe and healthy and which one is cursed as dangerous.
In fact, traditional breeding is more dangerous, in the small German city of Quedlinburg some old man killed himself with his homebred zuchinis, after he had unknowingly bred them to be poisonous. You never know what you get with crossing individuals. With genetic engineering you know what you change and you know that you don't change anything else...
Do you have a reference for the poisonous homebred zuchinis?
www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/heidenheim-mann-stirbt-durch-zucchini-mahlzeit-a-1049025.html (It's in German though)
Oh, it was Heidenheim, somehow Quedlinburg had stuck in my brain.
Generally curious, how do you measure the co2 concentration in the atmosphere in 1000 years ago?
There are several ways. One way is to look at shells underwater made by planktonic organisms. Isotopes from the atmosphere get dissolved into the water, and if we look at the layers of these shells, the abundance of these isotopes tells us about the abundance of those isotopes at the time, and thus the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Lighter isotopes also tend to get evaporated in warmer water, which could indicate a higher greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere at the time. A more direct way to measure past climates is by looking at air bubbles trapped in ice. Again the layers of the ice are used for past time periods. This website does a better job at explaining these, and other methods: serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html
Another way is by analyzing air bubbles trapped in the ice on Antarctica.
climate.nasa.gov/ All of the answers
Has anyone else noticed that PragerU's globe graphic is spinning the wrong way?
Well the target audience of right wing tribalists won't care, some of them probably sent angry comments that the earth is flat like the bible says.
And so history repeats itself, this sounds awfully like when big petrol lobby for leaded gas.
Nikki M. Nah, not really.
Don't forget Asbestos the excellent fire proof fiber that causes respiratory problems
There was a cigarette company that used asbestos filters, that way you can get more cancer. I think the name of the company was KENT.
cigarettes don't cause cancer! They're good for you, believe me!
Are you sure the manufacturer of the bottled CO2 didn't add a smell to it? They often do this so they know when there is a leak.
Remi kind of like methane gas.
It doesn't really have a "smell", you just kind of get an acidic burning sensation in your nose. It definitely has a taste though.
And I doubt they added something to make it smell different, that was a CO2 canister for food use.
ollehkacb Yes exactly. Methane is nontoxic so it's purely for leaks(to prevent fires and explosions). But toxic gasses will often have a very distinctive and aggressive smell added, too. So the person knows he needs to get away asap. Carbon monoxide is very dangerous for this same reason. You can't see, taste or smell it. And it will kill you.
That reminded me of the time I tried to taste the air in one of those keyboard duster things, it actually wasn't air and it apparently it comes out in liquid form if you hold the can upside down. Worst thing I have ever tasted.
LostTranslation85 Hahaha it is probably liquid due to the pressure inside the can. But did you find out what it was? I'm curious.
Isn't this the same guy who was offered a glass of glycophosphate to drink after explicitly stating that you could drink a glass of the stuff and have no health issues?
Could it be possible that the taste and odor is from carbonic acid?
As a chemistry student I facepalmed 4 times! 4 TIMES! AYAYAYAYAY CARAMBA!
As a litterature student I facepalmed all the same, because I learnt most of this things at scool when I was 14 ^^
Funny, when I was 14 my chemistry teacher warned us not to make the mistake Thunderf00t made at 3:01.
You can never have too much carbon dioxide, is a phrase you can't say when you have too much carbon dioxide. :p
Sandre Streams You don't even need to be a chemistry student to understand the idocracy happening here lol
And if you where working with acids or poisoning gases, that warning is still valid. But CO2 is not inherently poisonous.
90% of videos titled "the truth about..." do not actually tell you the trurh
"How could somizhing that grants life possibly be bad?"
How about he just ate 1 kilo of salt? Salt grants life.
Nothing "grants" life. A large number of chemicals in appropriate amounts can *sustain* life.
If carbon dioxide is harmless, you need to talk to the astronauts on Apollo 13.
Hey thunderf00t, while I agree with just about everything everything in this video, I'm pretty sure carbon dioxide is odourless.
What you're smelling most likely isn't the carbon dioxide, but rather the acid formed when the carbon dioxide reacts with the water in your nose or mouth. Another possibility is that it could have been added into the bottle to detect leaks, and is actually a pretty common practice with products like these.
Alex Chenhall has to be pinned
Exactly my point, why dose he think he is right but every one else is wrong. Its a well known fact CO2 is an odorless gas. Super disappointed in the fans here talking his word over proven science.
The Marshmallow Man But even so, he is still smelling it.
Yes, so he is either lying, or the CO2 reacts with water like Alex said. This is why people like you who believe anything certain people says against every one else are whats wrong with the world.
Do you think he is unaware of that? I find it highly unlikely. It's possible, but this is ~11th grade chemistry and he has done research in chemistry fields.
That said, if he DOES know that he should make the distinction because most people won't know what he means.
If he doesn't know, he should issue a correction.
Ultimately, it comes down to a semantics argument anyway
I think the co2 itself is maybe not the thing you are smelling. Maybe its the carbonate or carbonic acid or some contaminant.
My guess is carbonic acid is being formed when the CO2 reacts with the water on his tongue and in his sinus cavities.
2001Pieps technically its not co2 but the acid formed when it dissolves in water, ie his nose
You shouldn't really smell it in smaller concentrations but he is fully blowing it in his nose.^^ It is very harmful to your mucosa, that is why he tastes or smells it as acid because essentially it is acid when desolved in water.
CO2 forms those compounds by interacting with water in your mouth and nose. Specifically CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 (carbonic acid). Hydrogen chloride and sulfur oxides undergo the same process which is why they're so dangerous to humans, no one likes sulfuric acid in their lungs.
Since the amount of acid created from CO2 is fairly low, the acid itself is fairly weak (relatively speaking) it'd take unrealistic amounts to be able to smell it in an open atmosphere, but then again you can't smell the chlorine when you're a mile away from the pool.
Bottom line, if you *can* smell the CO2, _run_.
How did people determine that it was odorless if it reacts with the water when you go to smell it?
The greenhouse effect is when the sun heats up a greenhouse and the heat can not escape the greenhouse. Correct me if I’m wrong but since the heat is coming from the greenhouse itself (earth) is it still the greenhouse effect?
The reaction from that first smell of CO2 was priceless. "OH! Bloody hell!"
Too much of a "good thing" can still kill you!
As observed multiple times in the past where there were mass extinctions; and another one coming! Sweeet.
Yep, even water and oxygen are both toxic at a certain level. And obviously breathing in 100% carbon dioxide will kill you very quickly.
Can confirm. I had too many hookers and it killed me.
WOW YOU ARE AMAZING. GEE THANKS FOR YOUR WISDOM MR GOD.
Don't you just love meth?
Dear Thunderf00t, most likely you will not read this but, i would like to point it out. Sometimes if a gas doesn't have any smell companies will add a smell to it so that you can identify if there is a small leakage of the gas.
avi popov especially in retail bottles
avi popov This is not one of those bottles...
This actually makes sense
avi popov
Actually it is more likely that the carbon dioxide reacts with the liquid on his tongue and nose and turns into acid and it is actually that acid he tasted/smelled.
+Avi. I doubt they would add foul smell etc to bottles meant for indirect human consumption. The bottle hes holding is a SodaStream bottle that goes into home operated cheap fizzy drink machines and I would argue the main reason Thunderfoot has one is because he used a Sodastream device in another experiment.
The co2 you smelled
What are the trace elements in it?
How pure is it?
Could it be impurities you taste & smell?
isnt the carbonic acid producing the smell and taste? so basically the combination of CO2 and H2O not the CO2 alone?
"Hey Thunderf00t, you should stick to science!"
*Thunderf00t sticks to science*
"Nah, what we meant was confirm our delusions by pandering to our personal opinions instead of doing what you've always done on your channel, which is to debunk bullshit."
Actually the like to dislike ratio isn't bad so I don't think there are that many anthropogenic climate change deniers
Crashandburn999 those pepole are not commenters
nice strawman
Wonderful Comments
I think he shed those people with his Lauren Southern videos
I hated some of PragerU's videos. They are very biased
Mahfuz Shaon everyone is biased...
If PragerU isn't propaganda ......I don't know what is. Seriously, it's borderline Stalin/Hitler type shit.
Some？
I thought truth was the issue?
Your biased
So if we have 4 or 5 times more co2 then wouldn’t we just die? We wouldn’t need more food
"But how can something that makes life possible be bad?"
I CAN'T believe somebody would be so stupid that they would accept this argument as valid.
It is a strawman argument. To engage in it at all is pointless; but sometimes entertaining.
Yeah, that’s like saying water gives life, so how could it possibly be bad for you.... talk to all the people who have drowned
Water is the source of life, lets put him at the bottom of a pool and see if he is still happy :)
I think you feel pain when sniffing CO2, not a smell.
Smells like burning!
Feels like carbonic acid on mucous membranes! Ouch.
Mucous membranes are very sensitive, putting carbonic acid on them would explain the sharp burning sensation he experienced from inhaling the stuff.
We also taste acids as sour, which also would be explained by the carbonic acid. I'm pretty sure this an interaction between the hydronium ions and either receptors or ion channels in taste buds, as pretty much all acids taste sour regardless of the conjugate base.
ThunderF00t is known to present false information, particularly where politics is concerned. He does it over and over and over. See the recent debacle with Sargon and the prior Lauren Southern falsehoods. Video footage edited by Thunderf00t to produce and impression of something that did not occur. He's a zealot. Some of his Science stuff is really great and I really enjoy. His politics are only slightly askew from the Fema-Nazi's.
no there is definitely a smell there
Do not quote me on that, but if I remember from school chemistry CO2 is colorless, odorless (unless in high concentration). What you smell/taste is probably Carbonic acid. Formed with high concentration of CO2 in water.
Anything is odorless and colorless and tasteless if its diluted enough.
Maybe since he smell it, and taste it, straight from a canister its high enough concentration.
In every safety training video/orientation I've ever had for a new job, they always describe carbon dioxide as a colorless, tasteless & odorless gas. I'm very surprised it has an acidic taste/smell
Im pretty sure the "colourless, tasteless, odorless gass" was in relation to its mixture in the athmostphere
No.
no, CO2 is actually colorless and odorless gas. Tastless not so much it is a bit acidic.
But odorless yes - I've done testing on different fireextinguishing methods for electronic machines, and one normaly used is pure CO2 to "suffocate" the fire. We smelled the room with a little above 80% of CO2 (it was a secondary experiment of the medical faculty about recognising dangerous atmospheres) and there was no distinctive smell which directly indicated CO2 like for example amonia.
Isn't 10% CO2 enough to kill you?
@The elder Golem 8-10% but it wont kill you becuase its co2 but it will displace the oxygen on your bloodcells. However within ha atmosphere you can survive up to 45minutes. deadly within 5 minutes are about 20%
I wonder if the reason he can taste and smell it in this video might be because the CO2 is forming carbonic acid when it comes in contact with the water in his saliva and mucous membrane.
Hey Thunder I was wandering who is A.Vidovic you mention in the end of your videos
I have a biology teacher in a small Croatian town called the same name?
Tnx in advance
Btw he works in a high school and Im 15
Thunderf00t A quick question. Does CO2 smell acidic on its own, or is it reacting with water forming carbonic acid before reaching the nose? May be a stupid question as I don’t have much of an understanding behind the reaction but interested nonetheless.
@12:59 "thermonukular bombs..." You're a scientist, man!
*Shoves pressurized Carbon Dioxide tank up nose*
"OH BLOODY HELL"
That's why I love Thunderf00t
I always thought those CO2 cylinders added a bitterent to prevent huffing? Or is that just for other chemicals?
BAMikeyD generally that's for canned air for cleaning computers, what TF would have would not be tainted by a bitterant as he is a science dude!
So Thunderf00t, what's your take in the role of that small ball of gas near fusing 600 million tons of H into He every second? Could it be fluctuating or do you think it's a constant?
Well, in fact I don't think it's even possible to 'taste' CO2. The substance's taste and smell @Thunderf00t experienced was probably carbonic acid formed by reacting CO2 and water present in saliva and nasal mucus.
I was 3 feet tall at ten years old, 6 feet tall at 20, by 30 I should 12 feet tall or 9 feet tall. These are just the facts.
"Isn't that sweet, the guy from greenpeace is going to teach me about atmospheric chemistry"
Greenpeace's statement on this guy who was not a co-founder to begin with: www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/
@@megspeed8552 the problem is the Greenpeace statement isn't actually true. Its a very well polished manipulation of half truths.
Moore and several other of the early Greenpeace crew who got erasd have documentation produced by the group calling them founders.
Plenty of large businesses edit their history to suit the politics and prices opinion of the time so its not particularly unusual.
2:41 At this moment, it suddenly sounded as if Thunderf00t had found a way to get the video to play from my laptop's speakers even though I had the headphones on! It turns out to be a very well-done audio illusion. The sound was still coming from the headphones, but in a way that made it sound like I was actually waking up the whole house with the laptop speakers.
Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. Early member? Yes. Founder? No.
This is the man who, as a lobbyist, tried claiming that Glyphosate in weed killer is harmless and safe to drink... until the journalist handed him a glass and he refused saying that he "wasn't stupid".
Odd, why didn't you use a recent photo of snow pack in California? I assume there are now photos past 2015.
Recent? Are you basing your assumptions on this year or all recorded years? This version of climate will not affect the entire world the same way. Global warming does not mean all places will be warmer.
Did you really just say "GLOBAL WARMING does NOT mean ALL places will be warmer."? As if the word global doesnt mean worldwide. Go ahead and explain to me exactly why you think they call it GLOBAL WARMING.
panda 666 my argument is the fact that the whole globe is getting warmer regardless, hence the name. Try again sweaty.
-.- your a trump voter arent you
+Mobilekalvni The reason it's sometimes called "global warming" is because the net temperature of the Earth is increasing. But even though the overall temperature is increasing, there are still areas on the planet where there's a local cooling effect. And even areas that are predicted to have average temperature increases can still have cold days due to chaotic weather effects.
I love when he pops out co2 cannister to prove him wrong :)
I of corse could be wrong but I thought they added something to it give it its smell?
Is it possible the company that sells the canister of CO2 put a bittering agent in it? Similar to the sulfur compound they put in natural gas?
Only channel that is worth enabling notifications for
I think that they did inform incorrectly with a purpose, to gain attention, this is when youtubers like you contradict what he is saying ,and thus make him more popular.
Nah, they are way too consistent on climate change just to use this as bait.
"But how could something that makes life possibly be bad?" - Your body needs sugar to live? Are you going to eat candy for every single meal then? Your body needs salt to live, are you going to go drink a tall glass of ocean water with every meal? Wtf kind of logic is that?
These people know what they're doing. They're relying on people not having any argumentation skills or logical-reasoning skills. Unfortunately, the vast majority don't. I base this argument on the fact that so much of this kind of bullshit goes unchallenged.
What software for the solar system is he using?
I have a few questions thunderfoot, I'd love to know if you have given thought to any of them.
First one is:
What is the Nominal temperature of the earth?
If we are above that temperature then...
What industries do we shut down?
Who's allowed to have a car and who isn't?
Are only important people are allow to have electricity?
If that's the case who's the person that decides who exactly is important?
How many wind and solar farms do we need to put up in order to fill the energy requirements of the US alone?
If we remove all cars from the roads that burn fuel how will food deliveries work?
Do we kill off all the cattle now, or wait til later when we cannot feed them either?
The main political solution is cap and trade, aka carbon taxes.
How exactly will that solve any real world issues?
Most of north america was covered by ice 12000 years ago, how do we know this isn't the normal warming cycle of the earth?
How much effect on warming is man actually contributing towards the rise in temperature?
If we are going to actually fix the issue who do we start killing off to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the system?
I have no idea if Thunder will answer this, but I can give you my two cents.
So, nominal temperature is relative, of course, as the Earth's climate has been changing throughout its entire history. If we want an ideal temperature for humanity to survive, then we're looking at about 13.7 C, about where it was in the 18th century. Right now we're at about 14.4.
We could solve the problem by shutting down industries and banning cars, but that's ridiculous. The whole reason we're in this mess is because fossil fuels are so incredibly useful. We can try to phase out non-renewable energy by switching to solar or wind, but just up and banning fossil fuel burning vehicles and electricity is a huge overreaction.
So, a big solar plant produces around 15 kWh, and the US consumes about 13000 kWh of energy. So, not counting things like energy inefficiency, heat generation from the grid, and stuff like that, we'd need to build about 867 solar plants. That's not that much, considering how many coal plants are currently operating.
Again, removing cars from the road is not really an option here. Our entire civilization is based on that kind of transport. We'd have to restructure our cities to something similar to early 19th century cities in order to make that a practical move. As far as cattle goes, vertical farming does real wonders.
Carbon taxes won't really help jack squat.
The 'normal' warming cycle of the Earth is a lot hotter than it is today. Shame that humanity evolved during an ice age, and a hotter Earth means that our species probably dies.
The political solutions to climate change is irrelevant to the science.
As for the scientific questions you have:
The earth doesn't have a nominal temperature, we do.
You bring up ice ages but we are overdue for an ice age and yet our planet's average temperature has been increasing.
We are pumping out billions of tons of CO2 and releasing other gases that increase the temperature of the planet, the planet's temperature is increasing despite the solar output decreasing. Additionally we are experiencing the fastest change in average temperature in history,
For starters we could shut down every coal, gas and garbage energy plants and replace them with smart electricity plants (solar, water, wind, maybe even nuclear)
That would save a HUGE amount of the CO² blasted into the atmosphere.
The other things you mentioned would be irrelevant by then.
He confused CO2 with CO. 🤦♂️
could you explain the carbon dioxide limited 667 terrahertz energy band gap theory?
so is the problem that we are producing too much co2 or is it that we are severely depleting the things that consume and convert co2 into oxygen or maybe a bit of both
I am weary of Venus being used as an example. Venus is also about 67/93 the distance from the sun as earth. If radiation from the sun is proportional to the inverse square of the distance then Venus receives 92% more solar radiation than earth so its atmosphere should be proportionally warmer in degrees kelvin (from absolute zero). As it is, the mean surface temperature of Venus is 737 K and the mean temp of Earth is 287 K. 1.92x287 = 551 K. Some of the additional heat is accounted for by the density of the atmosphere on Venus. Density of any gas will trap heat. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 9000% higher than earth.
Gasses do not normally "trap" heat. Only greenhouse gasses do. They are gasses in which the bonds between atoms in the molecule can absorb IR- frequency light, turning it into thermal energy. The majority of non-IR light just bounces off earth.
The average temperature on Venus is higher than the average temperature on Mercury and it's nearly twice the distance from the sun.
This is true. However it can be noted that one side is turned away from the sun for very long periods of time (58 days), and it has little to no atmosphere to speak of. It could also be noted that Mars is much warmer than would be expected by relating it to the radiation proportion comparison. This could confirm the carbon dioxide conclusion as well, but there are other factors on Mars such as planet color and albedo. There are many factors. There are also other contributing factors on earth such as blacktop roads and cities. Plowing a road in winter creates a noticeable heat sink. I wonder how much of global warming can also be attributed to our paved roads and rooftops.
+CHAS1422
Right, but its predicted that in a few billion years Earth would soon become the hottest place in the solar system because of its thick atmosphere and soon to be excess water vapor, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas. I think thats the point Thunderf00t is trying to show.
Does anyone think it's ironic the 2 elements that are vital for life a very deadly gas in high enough doses?
Not really. That's chemistry for ya..
pure water can drown you even in small doses.
Even playing too many video games can fry your brain!
Is that guy the one in the video where I'm guessing he is saying that a water is safe to drink but refuses to drink it and walks off when offered?
Where can i buy co2 ?
To be fair, there was a recent publication in Nature that showed large primary production increases and greening of earth surfaces, correlating with CO2 concentration. They also noted that the feedback loop provided by primary producers (photosynthesizers) should be accounted for in climate change models. I'm not sure if the current models use it, correct me if I'm wrong. Half of the primary production is actually provided by the oceans, mainly algae and those also benefit from more CO2. So I'd say at least those points remain.
They will slow down climate change not stop it. The trend is still going up whether you add more plants to it or not (Especially since we are cutting forests out left and right). The ocean is eating up CO2 right now, but once it starts to become more and more like soda those precious algae are going to die out.
Well, nothing will stop climate change, not even going carbon negative. And algae won't die out, those buggers are pretty resilient. It's the fish I'd worry about (but there I think a far more pressing problem is all the trash floating around the oceans). I think very few actually believe the planet will turn into Venus or something... Technically we're still in an ice age and CO2 has been degrees of magnitude higher in the past. The trend WILL continue going upward until it stops and goes down, it's happened before. The question is if we're accelerating that enough to cause significant economic damage before technology can catch up and deal with it.
D. Virant
Delete this! >:(
It is Busted™
2017 youtube science man said so.
Sounds neat! Got a link?
Paywalled, but good ol' friend SciHub can help with that ;) www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7648/full/nature22030.html
Thunderf00t you of all people should know that the smell and taste of CO2 is probably due to the reaction caused by it's dissolution with the water in your mucosa creating carbonic acid, which definitely would sting, whether or not that could be called odourless or tasteless depends on whether you are talking about the fact carbonic acid is formed or ignoring that fact.
Dan Josef yea thought that too
Yes... exactly. What do you think the human senses of "taste" and "smell" are? They are chemical reactions on various bio receptors.
I wonder in what condition a person will have a nose and mouth that didn't have water? A mummy may be? If that is the situation, obviously it is odourless and tasteless! Dead man can't taste anything.....
So you’ve tasted and smelled it yourself? Because I bet you never had.
So something being odorless would mean that there's no reaction or not a noticeable one?
@Thunderf00t I'm not too educated on the topic of genetic engineering, but hypothetically couldn't we just create a species of tree or plant that consumes carbon at a faster rate? Or what about making trees that grow to maturity in months rather than years. Can anyone tell me about this?
What if the smell was added to it for your safty? by the manufacturer of the canister you have.