I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here's How It Works.

Ғылым және технология

🌎 Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➡️ NordVPN.com/sabine It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart.
How does the greenhouse effect work? Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, prevent infrared radiation from escaping to outer space. This warms the surface of earth. More greenhouse gas means more warming. Simple enough! Alas, if you look at the numbers, it turns out that most infrared radiation is absorbed almost immediately above the ground already at pre-industrial greenhouse gas levels. So how does it really work? In this video, I try to sort it out.
👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ / sabine
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
📖 Check out my new book "Existential Physics" ➜ existentialphysics.com/
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
00:00 Intro
00:40 The Greenhouse Effect: Middle School Version
03:17 The Greenhouse Effect: High School Version
10:33 The Greenhouse Effect: PhD Version
14:30 Stratospheric Cooling
16:24 Summary
18:14 Protect Your Privacy With NordVPN
#science #climate

Пікірлер: 18 000

  • @SabineHossenfelder
    @SabineHossenfelder Жыл бұрын

    We have an infographic to go with the video that you can download here: www.dropbox.com/s/mhlu3b8f53pjz9t/Infographic%20Greenhouse%20Gases.jpg?dl=0

  • @arnswine

    @arnswine

    Жыл бұрын

    Shouldn't middle depiction (#2) indicate red band of hotness near surface (where it matters most to plants and aminals)?

  • @Bob-of-Zoid

    @Bob-of-Zoid

    Жыл бұрын

    I'm just happy to have great greenhouse tomatoes in winter! 😋YUM! Vielen dank Sabine!

  • @SabineHossenfelder

    @SabineHossenfelder

    Жыл бұрын

    @@arnswine It would have been too difficult to depict the difference to the final picture, so we dropped that.

  • @ThePowerLover

    @ThePowerLover

    Жыл бұрын

    TOO "dumbed down" if you want "rational" people to believe you!

  • @albertvanlingen7590

    @albertvanlingen7590

    Жыл бұрын

    Past climate has seen CO2 levels at 6000ppm so did humans cause those levels?? Plants die below 120ppm....think about that. But don't worry I don't want you to wiggle about losing your monetisation.

  • @tayzonday
    @tayzonday Жыл бұрын

    Wow! So we’d be an ice planet with no greenhouse effect.

  • @markotrieste

    @markotrieste

    Жыл бұрын

    There is a hypothesis that Earth actually went through a "snowball planet" period.

  • @MagruderSpoots

    @MagruderSpoots

    Жыл бұрын

    Then you'd have to sing about chocolate snow.

  • @msytdc1577

    @msytdc1577

    Жыл бұрын

    @@MagruderSpoots chocolate glaciers kilometers thick, MmmMMmMMm 🥹

  • @Patatmetmayo

    @Patatmetmayo

    Жыл бұрын

    The Earth has been through much colder and much warmer periods. It's crazy to think for example that in 10000 years from now our seasons will be reversed, it will be Summer where it is now Winter, and Winter where it's currently Summer. The hypothesis that CO2 has such a big influence on global temperature is really not as scientifically solid as we are being led to believe.

  • @enadegheeghaghe6369

    @enadegheeghaghe6369

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Patatmetmayo the part you missed is that we did not have 8 billion people on the planet during those much warmer or colder times in the past.

  • @Biga101011
    @Biga101011 Жыл бұрын

    When I first went to college I wanted to educate myself on climate change. I took a course on environmental science hoping to get a better understanding. Unfortunately I didn't realize the course was a sociology course, so we didn't actually learn anything about climate change or the environment. Instead it was about people's perception of the topics. An environmental economics course I took a couple years later was actually very good and useful, but still never really got a good understanding of the principles behind climate change. It is amazing how for such an important topic most of the conversation about it seems to not actually revolve around what it is.

  • @PhysicsLaure

    @PhysicsLaure

    Жыл бұрын

    I had a similar issue, but my course was 100% energy management (dams, solar, etc vs needs over time and in different places). 😂

  • @danielhutchinson6604

    @danielhutchinson6604

    Жыл бұрын

    In the Montana College in Missoula, the effects of Greenhouse Gas emissions are taught by a pretty good Common Sense Educator. Steve Running has received recognition for his efforts to understand one of the most prominent polluters in the Western US, at a small town called Coalstrip. We may be fortunate to discuss local effects of economic demands on facts that are presented by internet websites, but facts do matter, and we all need to look at all of the effects that money can buy?

  • @ericvulgate

    @ericvulgate

    Жыл бұрын

    Similar to the dialogue around corona..

  • @illustriouschin

    @illustriouschin

    Жыл бұрын

    Yeah you could have saved yourself a lot of time and money by watching a 20 minute video that just agreed with your prejudices.

  • @philipm3173

    @philipm3173

    Жыл бұрын

    If your school's environmental economics was anything like mine, you can completely disregard it. Carbon credits, cap and trade, all these things are utterly ineffective. There's only one solution, seizing all private petroleum assets and shutting them down.

  • @JonPMeyer
    @JonPMeyer5 ай бұрын

    That was an outstanding explanation! Thank you for not trying to simplify everything to the point at which your explanations become incorrect. I have been trying to understand how to correctly explain the warming effect of certain gases for many years and I have NEVER heard anyone explain the “altitude” issue like you did. Also, I really appreciate the explanation of stratospheric cooling and why that prediction supports the human-caused climate change story. There is quite a bit of good science content on KZread these days, but your channel is among a very small number of really great ones!

  • @buddymccloskey2809

    @buddymccloskey2809

    3 ай бұрын

    See the follow up in "Who Broke the Greenhouse?" soon. The stratosphere CO2 is even less than the near 0 effect of CO2 below 10,000'.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    3 ай бұрын

    @@buddymccloskey2809 You typed drivel.

  • @oliverheaviside2539

    @oliverheaviside2539

    2 ай бұрын

    @@grindupBaker Very impressive argument. Dummass.

  • @Mass-jab-death-2025

    @Mass-jab-death-2025

    2 ай бұрын

    I’m more afraid of gravity change. Since the widespread availability of backyard trampolines started in the late 60s the earth’s rotation has slowly been knocked out of kilter. It is now becoming critical, countless billions are being spent of so called ‘climate change” yet this more pressing pending disaster is largely ignored. I can solve this problem once and for all using strategically placed counter weights on springs at strategic gravity hotspots ( namely my backyard) and I can do all this for a cool 2.5 billion dollars. Don’t wait for the world to end with us all either shooting off into space of being crushed into the ground. Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute”. We are also hiring the services of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny to solve Climate Change. Santa is going to fly his slay around during his off season and the Easter Bunny will accompany him sprinkling the clouds with left over chocolate which has been finely powdered. This will stain the clouds brown and block the sun ending the dreaded warming that we are assured will one day cause sea levels to rise somehow. This can be done for the bargain price of 1.25 billion ! So what are you waiting for Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute” NOW or they may be no tomorrow !

  • @lrvogt1257

    @lrvogt1257

    Ай бұрын

    @@oliverheaviside2539 : He's not wrong.

  • @DavidPSchmidt
    @DavidPSchmidt7 ай бұрын

    Thank you for the excellent explanation. I would like to offer what I believe is one small correction. The reduction of static pressure in the atmosphere at increasing height is due to the fact that as altitude increases, the air is supporting the weight of less air mass above. Even without the inverse r-squared variation of gravity, the pressure in the air must decrease with increasing altitude.

  • @user-vl6tl7cj4c

    @user-vl6tl7cj4c

    7 ай бұрын

    Thank you to Sabine for the excellent video and to David for the small correction. The decrease of gravity within the relevant parts of the atmosphere, which has a "thickness" of about 100 km, is also quite small, as these ~ 100 km are not much compared to the radius of earth (slightly more than 6350 km). To summarize in a humorous way: Even a flat earth would have an atmosphere that becomes less dense and colder at higher altitudes. At least as long as we don't think too much about what happens to the atmosphere near the edge of the disc. That being said, the (nearly) spherical shape of the earth is still important for the greenhouse effect.

  • @renatanovato9460
    @renatanovato9460 Жыл бұрын

    I usually understand things easily when Sabine explains. Not this time, though. I will have to watch it once more.

  • @florisv559

    @florisv559

    Жыл бұрын

    I'm with you. This is really difficult.

  • @dsp3ncr1

    @dsp3ncr1

    Жыл бұрын

    Well, unfortunately it's still not right. That's just not really how a greenhouse works. Greenhouses work by preventing conduction/mixing of the warmed air with the cooler air above it.

  • @marcwinkler

    @marcwinkler

    Жыл бұрын

    Let's try... Greenhouse effect works in a building with roof and sides made of glass. Beware of False Analogies.

  • @mikesmit6663

    @mikesmit6663

    Жыл бұрын

    i normally have to Sabines videos several times to get a thorough understanding. please don’t feel alone

  • @haukenot3345

    @haukenot3345

    Жыл бұрын

    @@dsp3ncr1 Let me make sure I get this right: Your point is only that the metaphor doesn't exactly fit, not that any part of the actual explanation is wrong, is it?

  • @ignaciogc9920
    @ignaciogc99203 ай бұрын

    Chapeau!!!! You are the best, in so many levels you are the best,no doubt, is a privilege to have you. Thank you.

  • @ZimTachyon
    @ZimTachyon9 ай бұрын

    Yep, I will be watching your video many more times to memorize it. Thank you so much for you, your knowledge, and your invariably delightful presentation.

  • @alexanderkohler6439
    @alexanderkohler6439 Жыл бұрын

    I really liked this episode, however, I think the explanation at 6:45 - 7:15 of why the roundness of earth and the inverse square law for gravitiy were relevant and why the pressure decreased with the height above the earth is totally incorrect. The pressure doesn't decrease due to the decreasing gravitational pull. In fact, the latter almost stays constant in that area. What changes, is the remaining amount of air above you that has a weight and thus exerts pressure on you. The same principle applies in water. You observe a higher water pressure at the ground of a swimming pool than at its surface. Again, that is not due to a higher gravitational pull, but due to a higher amount of water above you.

  • @fares_of_arabia

    @fares_of_arabia

    Жыл бұрын

    Thant also works on flat surfuces, no balls needed thank you.

  • @starstenaal527

    @starstenaal527

    Жыл бұрын

    And what exactly causes the air above you to get pushed down on you if not gravity?

  • @fares_of_arabia

    @fares_of_arabia

    Жыл бұрын

    @@starstenaal527 and what.....gravity does not work on a flat surfaces, or are you going to give me earth magnetic core bullshit, have you been to the earth core.....no.....so...do don't tell me what is there underneath the so called core, because you don't know either....

  • @revanwallace

    @revanwallace

    Жыл бұрын

    @@starstenaal527Gravity indeed causes air pressure in that gravity gives air weight; but it is NOT the decrease in gravity with altitude that causes the decrease in air pressure with altitude. The reason for that is much simpler: the higher you go in the atmosphere, there will a lesser weight of air above you pushing down.

  • @starstenaal527

    @starstenaal527

    Жыл бұрын

    ​@@revanwallaceAgreed.

  • @delveling
    @delveling Жыл бұрын

    I didn't realize that this subject is so complicated, i almost took a break and went back to watching quantum mechanic videos to clear my mind a little, thank you for the enlightening explanation.

  • @kayakMike1000

    @kayakMike1000

    Жыл бұрын

    At best, it's really saying is CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing without saying that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. There's a slight cooling effect, apparently, because CO2 emits infrared efficiently is sparse atmospheres, I guess... I guess carbon dioxide doesn't act like an ideal black body. And this cooling effect is observed in one model from 1968, so all the models must be correct.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    Жыл бұрын

    ​ @kayakMike1000 "this cooling effect is observed in one model" S.B. "this cooling effect is measured by instruments on satellites since 1964".

  • @mokiloke

    @mokiloke

    Жыл бұрын

    Yeah, me too lol, and i did these subjects at Uni, but my brain still hurts

  • @MrJdsenior

    @MrJdsenior

    Жыл бұрын

    If you think quantum mechanics is simpler than this, I would question your grasp of quantum mechanics, or your relative time spent thinking and learning about each of the two subjects, at least. There IS NO understanding of a lot of quantum mechanics. A lot of it is just a bunch of hand waving. There's a quote Feynman supposedly made that went something like: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't, which is basically what I said, though his is much more concise, and he was a leader the field in some aspects, those crazy diagrams, where I am mostly clueless. I just remember all the "A miracle occurs here" when I was learning about it in an introductory course as the core for an engineering degree, and that hand waving occurred a lot more than once, IIRC. Or was that a joke? If so, good one. :-) I saw quantum well FLIR detectors and the like, but I can tell you for a fact that if I were the only one trying to develop them, they wouldn't exist.

  • @kayakMike1000

    @kayakMike1000

    Жыл бұрын

    @@grindupBaker jokes on you duder, the poles have a tremendous amount of hot air in the stratosphere and there's colder than expected air in the tropical troposphere. Could it be that there are cycles?

  • @Bob-uh3nx
    @Bob-uh3nx2 ай бұрын

    I had to really focus but I was very impressed. Thank you for taking the time to pass on🎉 the information Bob L.

  • @brucejankowitz4501
    @brucejankowitz45016 ай бұрын

    great video, my understanding improved each time I watched, I've watched three times now

  • @Sean-ll5cm
    @Sean-ll5cm Жыл бұрын

    Everything's always so much more complicated than it seems 😭

  • @davideyres955

    @davideyres955

    Жыл бұрын

    That’s the thing with chaotic systems. Complicated and very hard to model. This is the problem with the narrative and how they are using it. There are plenty of things we can do to increase the efficiency of the consumption but we are tackling things we want to not the things that will make a real difference. For example aerogel insulation is about twice as good as PIR insulation but we are not subsidising it and ensuring it’s used in construction. It’s postulated that you could heat a house insulated with aerogel with a candle.

  • @MeppyMan

    @MeppyMan

    Жыл бұрын

    @@davideyres955 “the narrative” and “how they are using it”. Sigh.

  • @MaGaO

    @MaGaO

    Жыл бұрын

    @@toungewizzard6994 The video specifically shows why the greenhouse effect doesn't happen because of the Sun: it just provides the energy.

  • @borttorbbq2556

    @borttorbbq2556

    Жыл бұрын

    Hey you think you understand something in science you probably don't

  • @georgesheffield1580

    @georgesheffield1580

    Жыл бұрын

    Only for simpletons

  • @aDifferentJT
    @aDifferentJT Жыл бұрын

    Air pressure doesn’t decrease with altitude because the gravitational force decreases, in a uniform gravitational field the air pressure would also decrease, and the gravitational force in LEO is pretty similar to that on the surface. It decreases because the mass of air above that point is lower.

  • @55dionysus

    @55dionysus

    Жыл бұрын

    So the gravitational force is uniform across any distance ? The weight of the air mass isn't created by gravity and its distance ? I can picture pressure decreasing as the air gets thinner above it , but I thought that was the effect of gravity and distance .

  • @wirbelfeld4033

    @wirbelfeld4033

    Жыл бұрын

    She corrects this in the description

  • @MovieViking

    @MovieViking

    Жыл бұрын

    Correct, Sabine corrected this in the description: "Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart. "

  • @joejoejoejoejoejoe4391

    @joejoejoejoejoejoe4391

    9 ай бұрын

    If that was true, then pressure would increase with the depth of the oceans, - oh, wait, it does!

  • @peterja6441

    @peterja6441

    Ай бұрын

    nope. the air molecules just have a velocity distribution at a given temperature. the kinetic energy of the molecules is what makes the atmosphere "terminate" at certain altitude - there are just not enough molecules to go any higher. remember classical gas is mostly Boltzmann distributed, means there are exponentially less molecules with higher and higher energy. thats also the reason why the air is getting exponentially thinner if you go to higher altitudes

  • @KruczLorand
    @KruczLorand6 ай бұрын

    the pressure of the atmosphere doesn't decrease with height due to the inverse square law of gravity being weaker. The difference in gravitational acceleration is negligable from the surface to 100km high which is where space begins. The pressure decreases because is given by the weight of the column of air above and as you move towards space that columns is less and less massive.

  • @SimonFrack

    @SimonFrack

    2 ай бұрын

    Same reason pressure increases with water depth, yes?

  • @albripi

    @albripi

    2 ай бұрын

    I noticed that error, too

  • @miked5106

    @miked5106

    2 ай бұрын

    Isn't energy moving thru the atmosphere via convection vs radiation at least until it reaches the higher elevation where the air is scarce?

  • @brianmacker1288

    @brianmacker1288

    Ай бұрын

    ​@@miked5106It is both radiation and convection yes. But another major effect is atmospheric heat piping by water vapor. Look up a heat pipe and how it functions. Now realize that water has a high heat of vaporization and condensation. Note the fact water vapor is lighter than air and convects upward, plus is a infrared absorbtive and radiative gas. These properties cause the water cycle to act as a natural heat pipe. Water evaporates at the surface, capturing the heat of vaporation at low elevation. That latent heat of vaporization cannot be lost by radiation back to the surface unless it condenses. The water vapor can then also warm radiatively by absorbing more infrared heat from the surface, or warm CO2 in the atmosphere. High humidity air being lighter than dry air it rises. Rising above a significant amount of CO2 which is denser than air so stays relatively lower. At cloud height it cools to the point it condenses, releasing its enormous load of latent heat of condensation, and radiates above most CO2. The cold rain falls back to earth cooling the surface. The cloud also reflects incoming solar radiation. Every raindrop represents a net cooling done by this natural heat pipe. Heat had to have radiated to space for it to condense and fall back.

  • @7071SydcHome

    @7071SydcHome

    Ай бұрын

    @@SimonFrack I'd say that is correct.

  • @alclosebr
    @alclosebr7 ай бұрын

    Ms Hossenfelder. Thank you for this video, and all the videos you make.

  • @prydin
    @prydin Жыл бұрын

    Sabine! A good science communicator is one who’s not afraid to say “this is more complicated than you think”. Thank you again for the great content you put out!

  • @kanguruster

    @kanguruster

    Жыл бұрын

    Sabine is also a good enough communicator to say "this is more complicated than even I thought, so I further educated myself."

  • @jovetj

    @jovetj

    Жыл бұрын

    It's always "more complicated than you think"...

  • @msimon6808

    @msimon6808

    Жыл бұрын

    It has to be very complicated to use water vapor and then make it disappear. Magic. Magic is not science. Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory. If you can believe the theory. If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.

  • @msimon6808

    @msimon6808

    Жыл бұрын

    @@kanguruster It has to be complicated. To cover this up. Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory. If you can believe the theory. If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.

  • @Bob-of-Zoid

    @Bob-of-Zoid

    Жыл бұрын

    I wish flat earthers would realize that some things are harder than just "It looks flat to me" and then assume all of science must therefore be wrong!

  • @sentinel2199
    @sentinel2199 Жыл бұрын

    Sadly it's even more complicated than that. The greenhouse effect causes less than 50% of the warming effect predicted from increasing CO2, with the remainder being caused by climate feedback effects: There are a huge number of climate feedbacks, but a simple example of a "positive feedback" is that white snow reflects sunlight, but once it's melted by a warming environment, then more sunlight will be absorbed by the ground, and so the temperature will increase further (so causing even more snow to be melted, etc). An example of a "negative feedback" is that as temperature increases, there is more evaporation from the ocean, which causes more clouds to form in the lower atmosphere, reflecting more sunlight into outer space, so reducing temperature. Unfortunately these feedback effects are often not understood very well (as they are often hard to measure), hence the large variation in predictions made by different climate models (and so why the IPCC prefers to average over a large number of models). In the distant past there was probably a period known as the Snowball Earth where most(*) of the surface was covered in ice (reflecting sunlight into space) from a massive ice age, and without volcanism producing CO2 the Earth might still have been like that today. (* I have simplified to avoid writing too much.)

  • @bluebristolian

    @bluebristolian

    Жыл бұрын

    The feedbacks are clearly negative. Systems with positive feedbacks are unstable, so if it could it would have already, and we’d have been in runaway global warming for billions of years. Unfortunately Sabine is missing the big picture.

  • @sentinel2199

    @sentinel2199

    Жыл бұрын

    @@bluebristolian Climate scientists use "positive feedback" in a slightly different sense to how electronics engineers (and possibly others) use it. When they say "positive feedback" they mean that the loop gain is > 0 but < 1, and so is still basically stable (but may have oscillations that will die out). You can think of a CO2-induced temperature gain of (say) 0.8C, producing 0.4C further increase from positive feedback, which then produces 0.2C of further increase from positive feedback (on itself!), which then produces 0.1C of further increase, etc. In this simple case the overall gain would be end-up as 1.6C, thus doubling the original CO2-induced temperature change. The real climate is of course rather more complicated, with different feedbacks operating on vastly different time scales.

  • @sentinel2199

    @sentinel2199

    Жыл бұрын

    It seems my follow-up post has been auto-blocked by KZread, possibly due to me including links for reference. What I basically said is that the sum of positive+negative feedbacks is known as "climate sensitivity". The IPCC's best estimate of climate sensitivity is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C. But without ANY feedbacks (i.e. just the physics mentioned in this video) CO2 would only increase temperature by about 1C (this is a non-controversial statement!). Thus CO2's physically direct contribution is only 1/2.5 to 1/4 of the total warming effect (i.e. 40% to 25%).

  • @sentinel2199

    @sentinel2199

    Жыл бұрын

    Sorry, I don't use either of those apps, but anyway I'm just a science nerd with a passing interest in climate science 🙂

  • @richardatkinson4710

    @richardatkinson4710

    7 ай бұрын

    Well, I’m no scientist either, but I can read; so with trepidation… There’s still a missing feature, which is the fact that evapotranspiration + convection is responsible for carrying away a large fraction of surface heat as the latent heat of evaporation. At the cold trap, water condenses (OK, I know that this is complicated by the need for condensation nuclei) and the heat is radiated away into space. It’s the reason we are not, and will never be, at rusk of runaway global warming. The big question, which I can’t see clearly covered in the IPCC science sections, is how this is affected by changes in surface temperature. You’d naively expect a strong negative feedback. But (witness Sabine’s presentation and your own reply) nobody seems to be talking about it one way or the other.

  • @VFella
    @VFella7 ай бұрын

    Danke Sabine!! I'm studying environmental science (second degree and just for love of the subject). You explanation was awesome. I'm surely also checking out the book, even if it's borrowed from the library at the CWI

  • @Mass-jab-death-2025

    @Mass-jab-death-2025

    3 ай бұрын

    Good luck with the brain washing, you have the head for it. No trust is what you can see with your own eyes and the inability to think for yourself. All admirable qualities sought in our educational system. Well done.

  • @thenitroshop9377

    @thenitroshop9377

    2 ай бұрын

    your being taught bullshit and lies

  • @richardwarren449
    @richardwarren4498 ай бұрын

    Sounded, as always, that Sabine really understands this topic, but I’m unable to process such a rapid fire delivery; will need to rewatch at least once.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    8 ай бұрын

    I think it's only a modest charge for refills.

  • @glenwaverley23

    @glenwaverley23

    6 ай бұрын

    What you do is click on the little gear wheel bpttom right of KZread playing and select speed - make it 75 per cent. I do this anyway.

  • @Elloziano
    @Elloziano Жыл бұрын

    Very necessary video, my favorite channel never fails to deliver!

  • @sillysad3198

    @sillysad3198

    Жыл бұрын

    absolutely necessary! to not being fired, and trown out of youtube.

  • @armouredghoul8279

    @armouredghoul8279

    Жыл бұрын

    R E C Y C L I N G is a sc4m

  • @armouredghoul8279

    @armouredghoul8279

    Жыл бұрын

    C0mpanies didn't want to stop using plastic so they blamed us for not "R E C Y C L I N G"

  • @armouredghoul8279

    @armouredghoul8279

    Жыл бұрын

    Use glass bottles instead and wash them.

  • @monicabello3527

    @monicabello3527

    Жыл бұрын

    @@armouredghoul8279simply drink tap water😜

  • @himbeertoni08
    @himbeertoni08 Жыл бұрын

    Wow, that just blew my mind! I've a phD in physics and still had exactly the same misunderstanding. I think, it's not just the arrows in the diagram, but most sources of information trying to make the complex topic understandable. Kind of similar to the various atomic models out there in schools and the web, which are scientifically all oversimplified, thus wrong when it comes to explaining chemistry (Schrödinger and Dirac are nodding).

  • @SpectatorAlius

    @SpectatorAlius

    Жыл бұрын

    Are you referring to the Bohr Model, or to Lewis diagrams? If the former, its inadequacy is itself often overstated. And here's a factoid about that may change the way you see it: in the QM model for the atom, the points of local maximum probability for finding the electron correspond to the Bohr orbit.

  • @davidconner-shover51

    @davidconner-shover51

    Жыл бұрын

    Curses Bohr!

  • @himbeertoni08

    @himbeertoni08

    Жыл бұрын

    I had Bohr's model in mind, but Lewis notation is another great example. Following Bohr's model, the orbital model did improve on what could be explained. Schrodinger's equation was improved by Dirac to include relativistic effects. We ever improve our models, but in the end they are all limited. Such is the greenhouse model for climate change.

  • @dsp3ncr1

    @dsp3ncr1

    Жыл бұрын

    If you take that -18C prediction for Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature and, (for modeling/prediction purposes), say that that temperature occurs 5km up in the atmosphere and then apply the ideal gas law what would you predict the temperature of the air at sea level to be?

  • @afterthesmash

    @afterthesmash

    Жыл бұрын

    You need to check out Doug McLean's "Common Misconceptions in Aerodynamics" on KZread from October 2013. He's a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who explains to other Boeing engineers that what they thought they knew about Navier-Stokes is all wet. Around 26:00 he explains that there's a reciprocal cause-and-effect relationship between velocity and pressure. If you manage to wade through the vorticity field due to the Biot-Savart law without hitting pause, you're a much better physicist than I would have even been, had I not taking the other fork in the road into computer science instead.

  • @littlesun2023
    @littlesun20238 ай бұрын

    This was so great. Thank you so much. It will help much in daily discussions

  • @dksaevs
    @dksaevs3 ай бұрын

    Sabine, thank you for this explanation of the greenhouse effect.

  • @trevorcrowley5748
    @trevorcrowley5748 Жыл бұрын

    "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"

  • @techcafe0

    @techcafe0

    Жыл бұрын

    hear! hear!

  • @stapleman007

    @stapleman007

    Жыл бұрын

    "It is impossible to change a man's belief when he is being paid to believe."

  • @einhalbesbrot

    @einhalbesbrot

    7 ай бұрын

    ​@@stapleman007why would it be impossible? Pay more!

  • @leeadickes7235

    @leeadickes7235

    7 ай бұрын

    Or funding from a university

  • @tarant315

    @tarant315

    7 ай бұрын

    ​@@einhalbesbrotdid you hear how much those co2 extractor made on profits last year

  • @mathewkolakwsk
    @mathewkolakwsk Жыл бұрын

    Thank you for continuing to tackle very complicated topics! You put your explanations into context very well. Specifically, your explanation here is helpful and assumes we aren’t all too ignorant or stupid, or bad faith actors. Thanks again!

  • @Kenneth-ts7bp

    @Kenneth-ts7bp

    Жыл бұрын

    But you don't understand the physics, nor do any climate alarmists.

  • @mathewkolakwsk

    @mathewkolakwsk

    Жыл бұрын

    @@Kenneth-ts7bp So-called climate alarmists (or climatologists, in part) have been saying the same thing for decades - and the data supports what they’ve been saying. Glaciers are receding, the average temperature on the surface of the planet is going up… and the mechanisms for why this is happening is understood (well enough). What do you know that everyone else doesn’t?

  • @Kenneth-ts7bp

    @Kenneth-ts7bp

    Жыл бұрын

    @Mathew Kolakowski I understand physics. That's the difference. Anyone who claims CO2 can overheat the planet is clueless and doesn't understand physics. Isn't it ironic that CO2 just keeps increasing agricultural output and not overheating the planet. Why do you think they call Greenland Greenland?

  • @Kenneth-ts7bp

    @Kenneth-ts7bp

    Жыл бұрын

    @Mathew Kolakowski It's pretty obvious Sabine doesn't understand greenhouse gases and she's just parroting what someone told her. She made the claim CO2 blocks all outgoing infrared; that is just patently false. It blocks very little and doesn't radiate heat to Earth. If CO2 radiated all its heat, which is very little, it wouldn't rise in the atmosphere. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be hotter and colder. Why do you think CO2 rises out of the oceans? What is it doing when it does that?

  • @libearl828

    @libearl828

    Жыл бұрын

    The co2 from jets in the stratosphere is capturing infrared warming the air

  • @lasagnajohn
    @lasagnajohn10 ай бұрын

    Wow, cool! I LOVE it! Reminds me of that PBS Space video about tides; in the sense that the more precise explanation really turns you on to wanting a better grasp of the underlying Physics. Even when you have a degree in the subject, you gotta stay sharp or you really will miss things. Thanks for this, especially since I am responsible for teaching these things at lower levels, the last thing I want to do is perpetuate errors.

  • @RhaniYago
    @RhaniYago5 ай бұрын

    Really great video again. And thanks a lot for giving us an argument against the often told argument that the sun is responsible for global warming. I will write a note saying "stratospheric cooling" and pin it to the wall to remember. And watch the video again tomorrow to be sure I understood everything alright.

  • @aliensuperweapon
    @aliensuperweapon Жыл бұрын

    I am amazed. This is the video that the world needs because this misunderstanding is probably more widespread than we could ever be aware of. Your alternative arrows illustration really puts it all together what you explained in detail during the video, it makes so much sense and adds a lot of good argumentation also for our own understanding. Than you so much for that! Some million more people have to see this.

  • @ifbfmto9338

    @ifbfmto9338

    Жыл бұрын

    I’m going to be completely honest……. I’m all for science education, and this video is pretty good, but I’m not sure if the general public needs to know, or is capable of understanding in any way, the subtle nuances and complexities of (exactly how) greenhouse gases cause warming It is more than sufficient for the public to know the basic point, that higher greenhouse gas concentrations leads to warming, and that therefore we will need to attempt to control greenhouse gas emissions as part of any effective climate strategy

  • @derkyarik_7298

    @derkyarik_7298

    Жыл бұрын

    ​@@ifbfmto9338 I must recognise, your comment, give me to an dilemma: 1º True is needed, if not, mankind is only a farm in the hands of some 'special people'. And I , on science since 1980, point for true, for honesty, the roots of any, any, science. 2º Social science, tell us that most part of mankind,,,,,,,, to tell it on polite view, do not have science and true as its most high value,,,,,,,,,,, I hope you understand me. So, yes, probably you have reason, but if we do this way, all mankind should, always, be cheated, swindled and robbed, yesterday, with 'the big-bad sadam hussein and his big and numerous massive destruction weapons', on 2011, with 'the big H1N1 mortality for all planet',,,,,,,,, about COVID,,,, you have your minds, they are the best judge,,,,,,,,,,, since 2005, 'the bad green-house' is going to give Mediterranean sea to Madrid, to Paris, and New-York (And Gozila) destroyed (It is nice to see all disaster on this city, ¿There are no other in the universe?),,,,,,,,, and so, on,,,,, forever. But on the other side, I know (I am 62 years old, more knows the evil for age, than for being the evil) how mankind, ,,,,,,,, is. So, yes, I can no solve this dilemma. For me, I have my choice, work, study, hard, for the true, hard,,,,, But for most, the true, is ,,,,,,,,,, other thing. Ifbfmto,,,,,,,,,,,,,, your words are not vane,,,,,,,, history is this way, now, and in Roma.

  • @photonjones5908
    @photonjones5908 Жыл бұрын

    There is a point somehwere along the learning curve, where one realizes how little one actually understands. Yet that is the gateway from ignorance toward a true grasp of a subject. We have all been somewhat misled by simplistic models, sadly most never reach the point where they recognize that they were misled. Anyway your video has also helped me to remedy my own misunderstanding that I had become aware of, and which brought me here for a proper explanation of the machanism of thermal forcing in AGW. Thank you Sabine.

  • @irgendwieanders2121

    @irgendwieanders2121

    Жыл бұрын

    Actually trying to recreate some research helps (or at least helped me). Reading the paper (or actually the 2 papers we started from) I thought it was easy, half a year later, having dug through 3 layers of references I knew it was easy, but not like I at first thought it was ;-)

  • @Kenneth-ts7bp

    @Kenneth-ts7bp

    Жыл бұрын

    You still don't understand.

  • @jakecostanza802

    @jakecostanza802

    Жыл бұрын

    A or B? A: we don’t fully understand climate change, let’s ignore it. B: we don’t fully understand climate change, let’s be cautious.

  • @BenBurkeSydney

    @BenBurkeSydney

    Жыл бұрын

    @@jakecostanza802 B would be my answer...

  • @voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

    @voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

    Жыл бұрын

    @@irgendwieanders2121 I emailed this vid to Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert and he replied that Sabine had asked him questions just to clarify his research. She's done an excellent job to make his research more easily understood!! So I find this very exciting.

  • @wfolta1
    @wfolta19 ай бұрын

    Excellent video and great explanation about how the arrows build the wrong intuition. Could you please add the hydraulic cycle to this? That is, when the lower atmosphere warms, it causes evaporation which causes more water vapor (greenhouse gas) but also absorbs heat. The vapor rises up to almost the stratosphere (at least in the tropics) and condenses which reflects sunlight well above the surface and also releases the latent heat from the water vapor at the doorstep of the stratosphere. Lots of moving parts there: water vapor as a greenhouse gas, clouds reflecting light, and the transport of heat from the surface of the earth up to nearly the stratosphere where it's released. How does this mixture of insulation, umbrella, and heat-pumping work on balance? For bonus points, do you think Elves, Sprites, and Blue Jets transfer significant amounts of energy as well?

  • @invaderzimm1083
    @invaderzimm10837 ай бұрын

    Thank you for explaining complex concepts in easy to understand segments en helping a simple man stay on the right course

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    7 ай бұрын

    All well & good but what about the simple ladies you'all. I was stunned watching it to note how ironically Sabine had excluded the simple ladies. Gerry Glass ceiling ?

  • @Thomas-ws6lk

    @Thomas-ws6lk

    7 ай бұрын

    ​@@grindupBakerthat's right, as she said in another report: "If you want to be a girl, join the physics club."😊

  • @TerryBollinger
    @TerryBollinger Жыл бұрын

    That was... intense! I think you covered most of the innards of the full model. One issue I didn't see is the criticality, complexity, and difficult-to-model fractal variability of the water vapor component. Without high water vapor averages, we'd be a giant snowball even with astronomical increases in durable CO2 and fragile-in-oxygen methane.

  • @SabineHossenfelder

    @SabineHossenfelder

    Жыл бұрын

    Yes, that's right. I was about to go on about the relevance of water, but it just got too long. So I ended up just saying actually it's more complicated than that...

  • @adamsuwaa1433

    @adamsuwaa1433

    Жыл бұрын

    Without story about water and clouds it is still only half-truth 🤔

  • @rogerlie4176

    @rogerlie4176

    Жыл бұрын

    As Sabine pointed out, a 20 minutes video can only scratch the (warming) surface of an incredibly complex subject.

  • @jjhhandk3974

    @jjhhandk3974

    Жыл бұрын

    Then don't fuckin say you're going to explain it. 😂

  • @msytdc1577

    @msytdc1577

    Жыл бұрын

    @@rogerlie4176 I mean you can simply say upfront that "Both water vapor and greenhouse gases result in the green house effect, but this video is going to focus on the gasses-let me know in the comments of you'd like to see another video covering the water vapor aspect." Then with one sentence you covered your bases, let people know there's more to the (complicated) story, and driven some engagement (go go KZread algo rhythm).

  • @alterego-bg8gs
    @alterego-bg8gs Жыл бұрын

    I have a PhD in AMO physics and you just blew my mind. Thank you for this video! I feel when it comes to global warming there is a coverage gap between super-simplified explanations and full-blown climate models. I really appreciate your video explaining it layer by layer.

  • @Lexoka

    @Lexoka

    Жыл бұрын

    And that gap leaves a lot of room for CC-denying bullshit to slip through.

  • @JohnSmith-is1qc

    @JohnSmith-is1qc

    Жыл бұрын

    it's not bs when party X claims something is true, when it contradicts known physics... and then appeals to complicated "models" as excuse to produce the insight how the stuff works from physics point of view... ie upper-atmosphere cooling is dead obvious anyone who has looked upon planck's law and checked the empirical results of co2 measurements from 1905 and onwards... theres plenty of older climate stuff online that shows this parody... claiming after the fact you were caught pants down that you knew you have pants down... despite history showing people were adamant pants are up... is bad science itself... denying part might be elsewhere than you think

  • @mathoph26

    @mathoph26

    Жыл бұрын

    So give us an equation please ! I have also a phd in particles scattering (Mie theory etc)

  • @user-ti5rb1mx5x

    @user-ti5rb1mx5x

    11 ай бұрын

    ​@Lexoka no one really denies CC, it's just not an emergency. It's gotten an average of 1 degree warmer since the Industrial Revolution.

  • @BerndFelsche

    @BerndFelsche

    10 ай бұрын

    @@user-ti5rb1mx5x You mean the LIA? ;-)

  • @cyberoptic5757
    @cyberoptic57576 ай бұрын

    Thank you! I appreciate the extra detail and extra effort.

  • @andreyswiesciak-maddox7242
    @andreyswiesciak-maddox72428 ай бұрын

    The first time I've heard something to help me understand those atmospheric effects. Wow!

  • @tomboyd7109
    @tomboyd7109 Жыл бұрын

    Thank you. I now understand the phenomena more thoroughly. I will have to play it a couple more times to be comfortable with my understanding. I just noticed that several other commenters said similar things. This means that your presentation is just about the level that I need. Thank you again.

  • @annaclarafenyo8185

    @annaclarafenyo8185

    Жыл бұрын

    Do not watch this video, it is wrong from start to finish. The mechanism of greenhouse gas heating is very simple--- extra CO2 scatters infrared light, leading to a longer path-length to escape. The mechanism is photon-by-photon, the mean-free-path to scattering is reduced with extra CO2, and so there is NO INTERFERENCE between wavelengths, there are NO COMPLICATIONS, and you can calculate the extra heating simply on the back on an envelope (if you are a physicist) without any problem. Sabine is not a climate scientist, and it shows.

  • @Maganyos
    @Maganyos Жыл бұрын

    To err is human, to admit it is humility, to share it is wisdom. Thank you Sabine - this only increases my respect for you.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    Жыл бұрын

    I'm sorry about that huge dent in the rear fender of your car. That'll just buff right out you know. Splash some paint on.

  • @VideosYTJuan

    @VideosYTJuan

    Жыл бұрын

    But Sabina, are we going to die if Countries don't stop producing CO2? Do we really need to stop using fossil fuels?

  • @seltonk5136

    @seltonk5136

    Жыл бұрын

    Busty babe

  • @eagle666beast
    @eagle666beast7 ай бұрын

    Wonderful! Sabine, your explanation makes more sense than any others. "Stratospheric cooling" is the relief valve that releases infrared heat to outer space. Heat radiation does not need air nor any physical matter for heat transfer by conduction or convection. Radiation (infrared, or heat energy) can dissipate in vacuum space more efficiently which can occur at night. I don't think we can model the greenhouse after the earth's atmosphere. The green house that we are familiar with has air outside of the glass roof. The earth has no glass roof & there is vacuum outside that can allow infrared radiation freely to dissipate.

  • @enderwiggin1113

    @enderwiggin1113

    7 ай бұрын

    A glasshouse is an analogy - and, as always with analogies, there are things in common (heating of the surface by the sun; a mechanism which reduces cooling) and things which are different (how this mechanism works).

  • @paulcoleman5199
    @paulcoleman51997 ай бұрын

    Thanks for a great explanation, this fills in many gaps I had in putting the data understanding n my head..

  • @RichardDonin
    @RichardDonin Жыл бұрын

    I’m very impressed with all your skills and talents - physicist, lecturer, writer, science communicator (like Carl Sagan), and to top it off, a savvy marketeer. Congratulations!

  • @gregmellott5715

    @gregmellott5715

    Жыл бұрын

    KIS helps Sane thinking.

  • @robr177

    @robr177

    Жыл бұрын

    You forgot Singer/Songwriter: kzread.info/dron/PtRwW9i43BXbCRQa7BJaiA.html

  • @tango_uniform

    @tango_uniform

    Жыл бұрын

    @@RWin-fp5jn Much of what you say is correct. However, the earth is greener in 2019 than 20 years earlier. Check MODIS data at NASA. Increased CO2 is due to more plant matter, not less. None of the supposedly learned "scientists" can explain the causes of every other warming and cooling period in history that occurred before humans walked the planet. But THIS one... THIS one is definitely anthropomorphic. Because it's convenient from a hysterical perspective. During the last glacial maximum, temperatures were only a couple of degrees lower than now. Before the sheeple are convinced that the logical thing to do is cool the planet, we might ask the people who now live where the last glaciers were. I live where the Columbia River lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet was. OK, I just took a poll of my household. We all vote not to cool the planet.

  • @Thomas..Anderson

    @Thomas..Anderson

    Жыл бұрын

    She also sings. Check her other channel.

  • @AlanTheBeast100
    @AlanTheBeast100 Жыл бұрын

    @07:00 the falling gravity with altitude has negligible effect on the pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is mostly due the weight of the air column - densest at the bottom due to all the weight piled on it from above. About 50% of the atmosphere (by mass) is in the first 5000 metres or so. Earth's gravity potential at 100,000 metres is 0.97g. Has pretty much no effect on the change of air pressure (density) with altitude. As to GH effect: I had the same issue up until this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mol6sdeodJbHeNo.html&ab_channel=SixtySymbols

  • @pompeymonkey3271

    @pompeymonkey3271

    Жыл бұрын

    I noticed that too. But it did not detract from the overall science :)

  • @ephemerallyfe

    @ephemerallyfe

    Жыл бұрын

    There are also no satellites orbiting Earth in the stratosphere.

  • @AlanTheBeast100

    @AlanTheBeast100

    Жыл бұрын

    @@ephemerallyfe I did hear something odd there but didn't go back for a re-hear.

  • @AlanTheBeast100

    @AlanTheBeast100

    Жыл бұрын

    @@pompeymonkey3271 It's so fundamental, that, well, it detracts from "overall science" if not this specific topic.

  • @paulramsey2000

    @paulramsey2000

    Жыл бұрын

    I came looking for this this comment. I was surprised that she made that mistake. I'm sure she'll hear about it. It's fundamental enough that hopefully she'll provide a correction but I agree that it was overall a great video.

  • @trlavalley9909
    @trlavalley99099 ай бұрын

    Your explanations are always of some use, your quite invaluable. : ) BB.

  • @SW-qr8qe
    @SW-qr8qe8 ай бұрын

    Thanks Sabine, I am a big fan of your videos. Thanks for educating me.

  • @liam3284
    @liam3284 Жыл бұрын

    Thanks, a side interest in atmospheric science, taught me that most heat flow at the surface is caused by convective and latent processes. There is still a window by which infra-red radiation escapes, which is clear to see on frosty nights, as the surface cools quickly by radiation. There is also "back radiation" from the atmosphere above, known as downward longwave radiation (DLR) which can exceed 300watts/M^2. That is where some of the oppressive heat on hot, still nights originates from.

  • @paulbloom7544
    @paulbloom7544 Жыл бұрын

    I'm a PhD Physicist who teaches general education climate science (when I don't have to teach the physics curriculum). This is an outstanding and clear presentation of how the greenhouse effect actually works (which I didn't fully appreciate for the first too many years I taught the class). The way you propose to modify the energy flow diagrams is spot on. Definitely some of your best work. Brava, and thank you for doing this. Heck, gonna show it in my class...

  • @arm-power

    @arm-power

    Жыл бұрын

    I would like to know the worst case scenario: What if we burn all those fossil fuel? From the science point of view there were period of time on Earth when all that fossils plants were alive on planet surface (before there were buried underground and fossilization process started). Lets put aside the process how those plants were buried - that catastrophic event (wipe out and buried Earth surface) is much more dangerous for humanity than climate change itself. - How high air temperature were? - How much would human civilization needed to adopt for that worst case? - And the most important one, how many centuries it would take to get the worst case if we continue in fossil fuel burn (including growth of population) I assume there would be no ice caps and Earth. Rising ocean levels is easy to handle as housing building speed (area per year) is much higher than area taken by ocean per year. Also with that high CO2 concentration whole planet would be incredibly green and food rich.

  • @tortysoft

    @tortysoft

    Жыл бұрын

    @@arm-power It is the massive changes that would be required from human population and governments to accommodate the environmental climate movements that would kill us. We can easily live on a 'warmer' planet Earth - but in different places on Earth. It's getting through the climate wars that will be the problem. We are in one of them now.

  • @valentinmalinov8424

    @valentinmalinov8424

    Жыл бұрын

    Will be good also to tell your students that that CO2 is not stopping the heat, but is re-emitting the heat in all directions. That means that CO2 also stops the heat coming from the Sun. Also, any warming will increase dramatically the water evaporation of the oceans, and the white cloud cover will block and reflect back most of the incoming sunlight.

  • @michaelstorm1007

    @michaelstorm1007

    Жыл бұрын

    Can you explain why "the ditch" gets wider with altitude when more CO2 is added.

  • @boohoo746

    @boohoo746

    Жыл бұрын

    but it is a terrible presentation when it attempts to pass judgment on climate change. the woman appears to be unaware the clouds are made of water vapor and have high albedo. she also seems to be unaware of ocean heat transport, solar-induced destruction of polar ozone, etc.

  • @joancarlesfortea3613
    @joancarlesfortea36136 ай бұрын

    Great explanation. One of the best (we can say the best) I have ever seen about greenhouse effect. Thanks a lots!

  • @user-vl6tl7cj4c
    @user-vl6tl7cj4c7 ай бұрын

    Thank you Sabine for this excellent video! Back when I studied physics, I also took some courses on astronomy and learned that a quantity called optical depth or optical thickness is very useful when discussing stellar atmospheres. There was a rule of thumb that the radiation we see comes from an optical depth of about 1, which provided relatively easy explanations for a surprising amount of the features of stellar spectra. This rule of thumb is also useful in earth's atmosphereprovides quantitative estimates for the altitudes at which radiation is emitted. One detail about the glass houses in which we grow food - to the best of my knowledge, the main reason why they get hot is that the air inside is trapped. In experiments where the glass was replaced with infrared-transparent windows, the temperatures inside the "greenhouse" rose to almost the same levels.

  • @Mass-jab-death-2025

    @Mass-jab-death-2025

    2 ай бұрын

    I’m more afraid of gravity change. Since the widespread availability of backyard trampolines started in the late 60s the earth’s rotation has slowly been knocked out of kilter. It is now becoming critical, countless billions are being spent of so called ‘climate change” yet this more pressing pending disaster is largely ignored. I can solve this problem once and for all using strategically placed counter weights on springs at strategic gravity hotspots ( namely my backyard) and I can do all this for a cool 2.5 billion dollars. Don’t wait for the world to end with us all either shooting off into space of being crushed into the ground. Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute”. We are also hiring the services of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny to solve Climate Change. Santa is going to fly his slay around during his off season and the Easter Bunny will accompany him sprinkling the clouds with left over chocolate which has been finely powdered. This will stain the clouds brown and block the sun ending the dreaded warming that we are assured will one day cause sea levels to rise somehow. This can be done for the bargain price of 1.25 billion ! So what are you waiting for Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute” NOW or they may be no tomorrow !

  • @crawkn
    @crawkn Жыл бұрын

    I'm very pleased to learn that Sabine isn't one of those (typically) insecure scientists who are afraid to ever admit to having misunderstood something. Nobody, no matter how well educated and / or brilliant, has never been confused by anything in this exceedingly complex universe. _Maybe_ underlying it all are some simple rules, as some suggest, but the myriad layers of chaos and emergent properties make it on the whole quite confounding. What should be notable is not that scientists are sometimes wrong, but that they are frequently right.

  • @zen1647

    @zen1647

    Жыл бұрын

    Yes! Admitting that you don't fully understand something is usually a sign of intelligence, not the opposite.

  • @DavidHRyall

    @DavidHRyall

    Жыл бұрын

    They should actually be wrong more than they are right. A 90% failure rate is healthy.

  • @seeyoucu

    @seeyoucu

    Жыл бұрын

    I appreciate that greatly.

  • @crawkn

    @crawkn

    Жыл бұрын

    @@DavidHRyall of course it's part of the experimental process, but I'm more referring to what they consider their established knowledge base. In this case, the greenhouse effect is a very mature (although still expanding) science with a lot of popular exposure, so I'm sure any scientist worth their salt probably _thinks_ they understand it.

  • @ghytd766

    @ghytd766

    Жыл бұрын

    Sabine is extremely confident in herself, allowing herself to admit failures. And imo, her confidence is well deserved. She's legit.

  • @oystercatcher943
    @oystercatcher943 Жыл бұрын

    This was amazing but I need to watch it again to fully get it - if I can. Though I'm pretty sure pressure and density doesn't reduce with altitude because gravity is less higher up, its because there is less gas pushing down from above the further up you go

  • @samuellowekey9271

    @samuellowekey9271

    Жыл бұрын

    Yes, actually a combination of the two(I know that you understand that). I think that the effect of the reduction in gravity with altitude on atmospheric pressure is tiny compared to the effects of the reduction in gas pushing down on the atmosphere below with altitude.

  • @EeezyNoow

    @EeezyNoow

    Жыл бұрын

    @@samuellowekey9271 Gravity has a part to play in the diurnal atmospheric temperature. During the day the increased temperature raises the centre of mass of the entire atmospheric column by around 100m - raising its potential energy. During the night, as the temperature reduces, the centre of mass descends back by that 100m thereby compressing the air and raising its temperature by compression/gravity alone. This is the diurnal squeezing effect which is substantial. But do any of the climate models take it into account?

  • @MrMichaelFire

    @MrMichaelFire

    Жыл бұрын

    Of course, just like gravity is essentially the same in the space station as on earth.... I don't need to elaborate.

  • @karolinahagegard

    @karolinahagegard

    Жыл бұрын

    Try and dive 4m down in water. The pressure increase is already immense!... Is it because the gravity is stronger, down there? 😏 Of course not. It's because of the weight of the water above you. Same with air, only it weighs less so you need bigger differences in altitude to feel the difference in pressure. I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmosphere is close enough to the Earth for the gravity to be about equal throughout it. If Earth is the size of a football, the atmosphere is 1 mm thick, something like that.

  • @karolinahagegard

    @karolinahagegard

    Жыл бұрын

    @@EeezyNoow , in nighttime, the center of mass of the atmosphere sinks back 100m, thus compressing the air, thus INCREASING ITS TEMPERATURE?!... No no no, the air reduces in volume by night BECAUSE the temperature is lower. Therefore, this "compression" does not increase its temperature again! The temperature of a gas only increases if compressed by an outer force, raising its pressure. Not if it just relaxes into a smaller volume because it gets cooler, and at a constant pressure, like in the case of nighttime. It's the ideal gas law: PV = nRT When T sinks PV must decrease. In this case, it's V that decreases, and P stays the same. (Atmospheric pressure is the same in daytime and nighttime, on average.)

  • @clifford7
    @clifford78 ай бұрын

    Sabine. I learn a lot of your clear explanation. I stay on board. Great.

  • @mauricioventanas
    @mauricioventanas8 ай бұрын

    Amazing explanation, and yes, I had it a bit wrong too. Just one clarification: the main reason why the density of the atmosphere goes down with altitude is not so much because gravity goes down. Actually, gravity changes very little from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere, because the thickness of the atmosphere is small compared to the distance to the center of the planet. The main reason is more trivial: it's just because it has less gas piled on top. When we're standing on the ground, we have our 1 atm pressure because of the weight of the gas on top. As you go up there is less and less gas on top, so pressure goes down. Following the ideal gas law, at lower pressure lower density. That will hold true even if gravity remains the same.

  • @CHSCHENK2000

    @CHSCHENK2000

    5 ай бұрын

    You are absolutely right. Hard to believe that she makes such a huge mistake. Just ridiculous.

  • @gefginn3699
    @gefginn3699 Жыл бұрын

    Great post Sabine. I'm glad you have the patience to gather all this information and package it nicely here. You are a trooper. So many variables would make me feel overwhelmed. 🤩

  • @Bertie.athenaeum
    @Bertie.athenaeum Жыл бұрын

    Thank you Professor Sabine. It was high time that such a video was released.

  • @annaclarafenyo8185

    @annaclarafenyo8185

    Жыл бұрын

    Why? Everything in this video is incorrect. Sabine is not an expert in climate science, and this video is a form of soft global warming denial, by incompetently rebutting global warming denier claims.

  • @n8mail76
    @n8mail763 ай бұрын

    I have been trying to find this answer for years. thank you for your explanation.

  • @robertmolldius8643
    @robertmolldius86438 ай бұрын

    Thanks Sabine! 🇸🇪 I put this as a basis for further studies. I have long promised myself to familiarize myself with what it is that basically constitutes our global warming. It's complex to get a gripp on, but with the prevailing weather in Sweden, the holiday is best enjoyed during a scientific exploration. 🙂👍🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪

  • @digit8282

    @digit8282

    6 ай бұрын

    Top Facts on Climate Controversy, Fully Explained - See for Yourself! ://kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaKe0dynpLvUipc.html&ab_channel=IvorCummins

  • @DeElSendero
    @DeElSendero Жыл бұрын

    You're a great teacher Professor Sabine! Always a pleasure to watch your videos!

  • @Leschsmasher

    @Leschsmasher

    Жыл бұрын

    😆🤣😂

  • @stephenclarke9660
    @stephenclarke9660 Жыл бұрын

    Brilliant explanation, turns out I had misunderstood it as well. Many thanks for making this.

  • @SeanSeidelin
    @SeanSeidelin7 ай бұрын

    Huge fan of yours. This explanaiton of the greenhouse effect gave me more insight. Thank you.

  • @manfredmay1502
    @manfredmay15026 ай бұрын

    nice explanations. the first time I actually questioned my believes and somewhat understood more about the processes involved was during the introduction part of the entropy video of veritasium - there the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation was briefly mentioned. Btw it´s Kelvin not °K, it´s an absolute value not a relative temperature scale;)

  • @helgefan8994
    @helgefan8994 Жыл бұрын

    At 7:03 Sabine suggests that the force of gravity decreasing with altitude is responsible for air pressure getting lower with altitude, but that is wrong. Over those 100 km air pressure goes from 1 bar to almost 0, whereas the force of gravity is just 3% lower than on the ground. Instead air is less dense up there because there‘s less air above it pushing down on it.

  • @sandman0123
    @sandman0123 Жыл бұрын

    Another great video! People just want simple answers but that's very rarely, how things work, in real life!

  • @axelspens5153
    @axelspens51538 ай бұрын

    Accounting for the earth's heat transfer as an energy balance seems like the best point to start to make effective changes. Maybe we can "tweak" the surface temperature by making some local changes to reduce the concentration of resonance gasses in the stratosphere or lower. The stratospheric cooling test at 15:36 for solar effect or resonant gas concentration seems very relevant. I appreciate Sabine's presentation of trends and data to account for observations in the industrial era.

  • @tobiaszb
    @tobiaszb6 ай бұрын

    Thank you, That needed some attention to grasp. I've got it.

  • @vap0rtranz
    @vap0rtranz Жыл бұрын

    Some climate scientists lectures have hinted at how Stratospheric Cooling works but Sabine's new diagram/model makes the point much clearer. Thank you!

  • @dusandragovic09srb

    @dusandragovic09srb

    Жыл бұрын

    There was only one "SCIENTIST" God of Thunder kzread.info/dron/hFXHYedYnjFo2ZbLwhiraA.html

  • @cdl0
    @cdl0 Жыл бұрын

    About thirty years ago in the early 1990s, I attended a colloquium given by a climate scientist about this subject. At the end of the presentation I asked exactly the question about the broad, saturated absorption bands of water versus the narrow band of carbon dioxide, which, sadly, our guest speaker could not answer, and I have wondered about ever since. So, now we know, and I am still alive.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    Жыл бұрын

    You can plainly see H2O gas radiating from average ~2 km above surface on any FTIR from space (since 1964 when they started with IRIS-A on Nimbus 1). You see the 10-13 microns that goes up in the land surface "atmospheric window". You see the huge CO2 notch that cuts far higher (far colder, far less radiated) than the King Water Vapour in the lowest ~2 km above surface. This is why non Water Vapour are called the "well-mixed" ones by scientists, because they go very high without condensing & thus losing most of their LWR power (clouds water drops & ice crystals do have LWR effect into them about 10 microns of course but it's far more powerful when the molecules are spread out as a gas because their molecule pals don't crowd them out). University Chicago MODTRAN has a Sahara Desert sample 1968 FTIR & there are others around like examples of these measured FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra (for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) can be seen at kzread.info/dash/bejne/gaObmY-Ef9fWdaQ.html at 18:07 FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the IRIS Infra-Red Interferometer Spectrometer instruments on the Nimbus-1 (1964 - 1964), Nimbus-2 (1966 - 1969), Nimbus-3 (1969 - 1972) satellites show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite. MODTRAN is this: Software Description MODTRAN - MODerate spectral resolution atmospheric TRANSsmittance algorithm and computer model, developed by AFRL/VSBT in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc. MODTRAN4 has been available to the public since Jan 2000. It remains the state-of-the-art atmospheric band model radiation transport model. PATENT: The Air Force Research Lab, Space Vehicles Directorate, in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc., is pleased to continue the release of MODTRAN4 as a fully UNCLASSIFIED atmospheric radiative transfer code and algorithm. MODTRAN4 follows the prior releases of LOWTRAN (now fully obsolete) and the earlier MODTRAN3 series. MODTRAN4 has been awarded a U.S. Patent, # 5,884,226; 16 March 1999. FEE: Access to MODTRAN4 requires that a new Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) be signed and a fee paid. Source code, data files and PC-executables are all on CD-Rom and distributed by the ONTAR Corporation for the Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL). The fee payment instructions will be supplied upon receipt of the signed NDA. Because the moderate fee (~$300) includes user-support, all receiving parties (Universities, Corporations, and Government Agencies) are subject to the assessment. Furthermore, the NDA term "CORPORATION" only denotes an individual research group. If any single CORPORATION has disparate research groups, each using MODTRAN4 in a different capacity, then the fee applies separately to each group. To do otherwise (distribute across research applications) constitutes secondary re-distribution, which must be individually negotiated with the AIR FORCE. DESCRIPTION: The Moderate Resolution Transmittance (MODTRAN) Code calculates atmospheric transmittance and radiance for frequencies from 0 to 50,000 cm-1 at moderate spectral resolution, primarily 2 cm-1 (20 cm-1 in the UV). The original development of MODTRAN was driven by a need for higher spectral resolution and greater accuracy than that provided by the LOWTRAN series of band model algorithms. Except for its molecular band model parameterization, MODTRAN adopts all the LOWTRAN 7 capabilities, including spherical refractive geometry, solar and lunar source functions, and scattering (Rayleigh, Mie, single and multiple), and default profiles (gases, aerosols, clouds, fogs, and rain). CURRENT CAPABILITIES: The current release is MODTRAN4, version 3.1. This version number connotes the additions of some errata and new physics since MODTRAN4 was first patented and released. The major developments in MODTRAN4 are the implementation of a correlated-k algorithm (references below) which facilitates accurate calculation of multiple scattering. This essentially permits MODTRAN4 to act as a 'true Beer-Lambert' radiative transfer code, with attenuation/layer now having a physical meaning. More accurate transmittance and radiance calculations will greatly facilitate the analysis of hyperspectral imaging data. The other major addition to MODTRAN has been to provide sets of Bi-directional Radiance Distribution Functions (BRDFs) that permit the surface scattering to be other than Lambertian. The combination of correlated-K and BRDFs has greatly improved the scattering accuracy, as has the implementation of azimuthal asymmetries.

  • @douginorlando6260

    @douginorlando6260

    Жыл бұрын

    The lack of understanding by the climate scientist proves it’s not based on science. We do know the WEF power cartel is using the fear of climate change to steal farms from the farmers who worked their land for generations

  • @hg2.

    @hg2.

    Жыл бұрын

    Is co2 glorified humidity?

  • @dilvishpa5776

    @dilvishpa5776

    Жыл бұрын

    Water vapor is a more significant greenhouse contributor than is CO2. I am with you. I have heard 50 years of gloom and doom scenarios, and none have been realized. Were any of then true,I would be dead three times over. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but as numerous physicists have comment (Bill Happer and Tyson Freeman among them) it’s contribution is already near its maximum, and will not contribute significantly in the future. The “shoulder” argument Sabine references is bogus. Vibrational molecular energy absorption is quantized, so there are no “soft shoulders”, and a few degrees of temperature increase will widen the CO2 absorption range, but at 273K that effect will be insignificant.

  • @dilvishpa5776

    @dilvishpa5776

    Жыл бұрын

    @@hg2. No.

  • @staninjapan07
    @staninjapan077 ай бұрын

    Always informative, easy to understand and amusing. Thanks so much.

  • @anticorncob6

    @anticorncob6

    7 ай бұрын

    Easy to understand? I've watched this twice and it goes over my head. :(

  • @staninjapan07

    @staninjapan07

    7 ай бұрын

    @@anticorncob6 That's a fair comment, and it applies to me, too, but in comparative/relative terms, this is easy to understand (though not fully).

  • @user-nx6ji9tk8i
    @user-nx6ji9tk8i5 ай бұрын

    Love the way you do it through gritted teeth! Lovely physics update and reminder of Plank,s law.

  • @edwardgatey8301
    @edwardgatey8301 Жыл бұрын

    Great explanation. I had heard the term ‘radiative forcing’ used in this context. I think I’ve got a better grip on the idea now. Didn’t realize the stratosphere was cooling which forces infrared emission to higher altitude.

  • @itsgottobesaid4269

    @itsgottobesaid4269

    Жыл бұрын

    Does heat go from a cold body to a warm body? Which is cooler,the ocean(earth's surface) or the atmosphere?

  • @edwardgatey8301

    @edwardgatey8301

    Жыл бұрын

    @@itsgottobesaid4269 Review the “CO2 ditch”.

  • @PhysicsLaure
    @PhysicsLaure Жыл бұрын

    Powerful analogies are great to give people a sense of physical concepts, but they can also lead us to false reasoning. 😑 Loving your content, I also had the same confusion as you before studying it. :)

  • @hugegamer5988

    @hugegamer5988

    Жыл бұрын

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it calculate quaternions to simplify special relativity calculations.

  • @benmcelwain5301

    @benmcelwain5301

    Жыл бұрын

    Agreed. Hawking radiation with virtual particles handed me the wrong stick for a while.

  • @0x0michael

    @0x0michael

    Жыл бұрын

    Neil deGrasse Tyson needs to hear this

  • @TimeTheory2099

    @TimeTheory2099

    Жыл бұрын

    So what was her conclusion? Reducing carbon gas is a waste of money? It's obvious the planet is warming, satellite photos prove that. Wouldn't reducing CO gas slow the effect?

  • @Mavrik9000

    @Mavrik9000

    Жыл бұрын

    @@TimeTheory2099 Global warming is still a serious problem. The atmospheric mechanism that causes it is a bit more complicated than the standard analogies explain. And most educational illustrations are incorrect as they are overly simplified.

  • @emjizone
    @emjizone10 ай бұрын

    Remarkably informative. Makes high school instruction more useful.

  • @ImprovisedExpletiveDevice
    @ImprovisedExpletiveDevice8 ай бұрын

    I have not found a single video of yours that has not been informative. Please keep the content coming.

  • @psychlopes1976
    @psychlopes1976 Жыл бұрын

    Love your videos, Ms. Sabine. Keep up the good work. And yes , this was, for me, super useful.

  • @lieninger
    @lieninger Жыл бұрын

    This was good. Thanks for deciding to present what you found on this subject, I think you're correct in that such a presentation that gives an explanation at this level of detail is important for a general understanding of the process.

  • @annaclarafenyo8185

    @annaclarafenyo8185

    Жыл бұрын

    This video is entirely composed of lies.

  • @AGDinCA
    @AGDinCA6 ай бұрын

    Thanks for keeping it real, Sabine! ☺️

  • @Deb-of2vq
    @Deb-of2vq8 ай бұрын

    I also misunderstood the greenhouse effect. Thanks for this explanation!

  • @C.V.Q
    @C.V.Q Жыл бұрын

    I have a much better understanding of how this works now. Thank you Sabine

  • @bobtarmac1828
    @bobtarmac1828 Жыл бұрын

    My go-to science teacher. Thank you!!

  • @zaakoc
    @zaakoc7 ай бұрын

    LOVE your presentation on this! You're smart and explain well. Add in a third grade level and sell/share it with educational providers.

  • @danstrayer111

    @danstrayer111

    7 ай бұрын

    Add in a third grade level.....good idea.....and sell it to Trump voters. That's the level of science they function at

  • @SageRosemaryTime
    @SageRosemaryTime9 ай бұрын

    Helpful and you make learning/researching FUN.

  • @KeithCooper-Albuquerque
    @KeithCooper-Albuquerque Жыл бұрын

    Excellent video Sabine! Great explanation - I found this quite useful!

  • @trentpmcd
    @trentpmcd Жыл бұрын

    Great explanation! Yep, even though I had a couple of years of college physics, I still understood this at the middle school level. Until today. This is one of those "must see" videos...

  • @dsp3ncr1

    @dsp3ncr1

    Жыл бұрын

    kzread.info/dash/bejne/oH6Al5mLdKnaqs4.html

  • @Daeva83B
    @Daeva83B7 ай бұрын

    Thx Sabine, one small step for me of understanding it. I actually used your argument today (yes i watch complex videos more then once) I said: Stratospheric cooling :D you would be so proud of me! hehehe

  • @gibbopg
    @gibbopg6 ай бұрын

    Solid information delivered with a good sense of humour. Thanks!

  • @michaelcornish2299
    @michaelcornish2299 Жыл бұрын

    Excellent, I tell students that we 'tell them lies or simplify things - you chose the turn of phrase'' and as they go through their education the we tell them 'slightly lesser lies or add more detail - again choose your turn of phrase' because the truth is often complicated. When they ask about quantum mechanics and I try to explain it to them they understand why we don't tell them about it earlier.

  • @Shizzlewish

    @Shizzlewish

    Жыл бұрын

    Dunning Kruger effect?

  • @MrTkharris

    @MrTkharris

    Жыл бұрын

    Yea, lies-to-children is an interesting educational concept explored in some depth in _The Collapse of Chaos_ [1994]. It has roots in Wittgenstein's Ladder. He said something to the effect that we give students ladders made of lies that they should throw away, but not before first climbing up them.

  • @PeterBaumgart1a

    @PeterBaumgart1a

    Жыл бұрын

    Well, simplifications, even gross ones, are not necessarily "lies." Lying implies malice or undue advantage to the lier.

  • @maythesciencebewithyou

    @maythesciencebewithyou

    Жыл бұрын

    It's not really lies. Every good teacher tells their students that they are explaining a simplified model when they do so. What you need to teach a student first is what a model is and why we work with models. Things are complicated, so of course you can't just jump into trying to understad them right away or learn the most detailed models we have from the get go. You have to get there slowly, step by step. And if you are just a normal person who isn't even interested in learning this kind of stuff, and most people aren't interested in learning science, then you wouldn't want to learn these details. Most people want simple answers. And even the simple answers are too much for most people. In these comments you always find people bitching about school and why they didn't teach this stuff to them in school. Well, this is infotainment and the actual info here simply goes beyond the scope of school. Most of these people would have hated this subject if they actually had to properly understand it and explain it in an exam. Even if some of them are science buffs who like this stuff, most other highschool students would have hated this. This stuff is what university is for. If highschool taught everything, then you wouldn't need to go to uni. And a university student doesn't needs to learn every subject in all detail. A biologist has to learn physics, but they don't need it to the same level as a physicist. And a physicist who specializes in one field doesn't have to know every detail of another field. It's not possible to be an expert in everything. Some stuff we know in better detail, but most of what we know is superficial knowledge on a subject. This video went into more detail, then the dumbed down stuff most people hear, but even this video doesn't explain every detail. Most viewers here would have hated it if she made a full boring lecture and even more so if there was an exam at the end. Most ironic are the people here who don't realize, that Sabine read a scientific textbook from a climate scientist to get this knowledge and act like she presented something controversial and in support of climate change denial.

  • @peterblair6489

    @peterblair6489

    Жыл бұрын

    I remember my chemistry teacher said that a lot. Lol I think lie is a bit harsh. We can't handle the truth.

  • @Knervik
    @Knervik Жыл бұрын

    I usually understand Sabine's explanations well, but this was an exception. There were many explanations of how the phenomenon *doesn't* work, which were all intuitive. The intuitiveness of those explanations makes them stick in my mind as competitors to the full-fledged explanation. I'll have to watch it again.

  • @loveboat

    @loveboat

    Жыл бұрын

    The atmosphere works exactly (the analogy is close to perfect) an electrical circuit. A battery provides the voltage. A resistor reduces the flow of current. A resistor does not eat up the electrons; similarly a greenhouse gas does not eat up infrared light. Put more resistors in a circuit and you have to add a bigger battery. More voltage. You know what voltage is? The *potential difference* between two points in the circuit. That's what's it's called: potential difference. It's defined by Ohm's law. You know what else is a *potential difference*? Temperature. Little surprise then, that when we add more greenhouse gas (resistance) to the atmosphere (circuit), the temperature (voltage) needs to increase to meet the challenge. The analogy is only close to perfect, because the atmosphere includes a lot more stuff than an electrical current. What are clouds? What is rain? The analogy does not prove global warming, but it does prove the greenhouse effect, without which we would not be alive.

  • @sillysad3198

    @sillysad3198

    Жыл бұрын

    this wonderful explanation is moot. because the fact of the Worming has not been shown at all, ever

  • @loveboat

    @loveboat

    Жыл бұрын

    @@sillysad3198 This is about the greenhouse effect, not global warming.

  • @sillysad3198

    @sillysad3198

    Жыл бұрын

    @@loveboat oh really? so it is just moot by design. ok.

  • @loveboat

    @loveboat

    Жыл бұрын

    @@sillysad3198 How is the greenhouse effect moot?

  • @samwis77
    @samwis775 ай бұрын

    Thanks! Very edifying. keep the videos soming

  • @SabineHossenfelder

    @SabineHossenfelder

    5 ай бұрын

    Thank you from the entire team!

  • @wassabied
    @wassabied2 ай бұрын

    i didnt understand most of it. appreciate the effort thoough

  • @zetacrucis681
    @zetacrucis681 Жыл бұрын

    The solar spectrum peaks in the visible (green specifically) not in the infra-red as shown here 3:48. (It's also broader than the curve shows.) The V.O. describes it correctly (saying "it doesn't change all that much in the visible", implying that the visible range is bunched around the peak) but the graphic is wrong.

  • @keithmiddlehurst4036
    @keithmiddlehurst403610 ай бұрын

    What do you think to employ a VPN for both cheap and open sourced education, or to replace both schools and universities?

  • @tsb3093
    @tsb30935 ай бұрын

    Also worth noting that some of the increased energy that the planet has been retaining in the recent past has been/is being used as latent heat to melt ice caps, glaciers and sea ice. Although hugely significant in terms of consequence, I imagine it’s only a small percentage of the total energy in the system but when all or most of the ice has gone, that energy will be used as sensible heat and the planet will warm even more.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    5 ай бұрын

    @tsb3093 Yes all these basic items are worth noting because they are subject to minimal uncertainty so gets them out of the way, straightforward. Like you I start with all the Basics (in March-May 2013 for me). So if I take Antarctic sea ice loss same as Arctic Ocean sea ice loss specifically for this "total energy in the system" topic, because it's all ultra-minor anyway just like you said ("I imagine it’s only a small percentage of the total energy") then a good approximation of all ice reduction of Earth (all 5 usual groupings that it gets separated into) last decade rate or some such is 1,200 Gt/year and by trivial calculation that I'm doing without calculator that needs 0.40 Zettajoules/year to melt it. So here it is in a table shown as a portion of your "total energy in the system" which is Earth's energy imbalance (EEI) which is the present global heater I've shown as (a) the global heater for last 12 months (b) the global heater as the present point on the trend line, from kzread.info/dash/bejne/fo2Y2NBroKrff9o.html at 1:06 Here the simple table: w/m**2 Zettajoules per year 1.57 25.1 The global heater for last 12 months 1.45 23.2 The global heater as the present point on the trend line 0.025 0.40 Being used to melt the 1,200 Gt/year of ice (obviously, only the annual ice REDUCTION and not the annual melting and re-forming) So your " I imagine it’s only a small percentage of the total energy in the system" is 0.40 / 23.2 = 1.7% of the global heater, yes it's a small percentage.

  • @davidcroft7381

    @davidcroft7381

    5 ай бұрын

    @@grindupBaker Is there a way to estimate how much heat is absorbed by evaporation?

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    5 ай бұрын

    ​@@davidcroft7381 The latent heat of evaporation is well known but I'm not sure that's your question. It's entirely unclear what your question is but whatever it is, if a person could figure that out then the answer is likely rather simple and accurately known. For example just for illustration it's known that about 13 trillion tonnes of H2O gas are typically in the atmosphere and it has all been changed to water and ice and rained out and replaced over about 9 days so one of the thousands of simple things I did in 2013 was simply calculate that latent heat of evaporation 13 * 10**15 kg * 4,200 joules / degrees * 600 degrees equivalent latent heat = 3.28 * 10**22 joules (32.8 Zettajoules) every 9 days of energy transported from the tropical ocean surface into the air and wafted around Earth on the breezes. That is 3.28 * 10**22 / (9 days * 24 hours * 3600 seconds) = 4.22 * 10**16 Watts (42.2 Petawatts) which is 83 w/m**2 for Earth (equalling for example ~1/3rd of absorbed solar radiation). I then noted back in 2013 that the Earth's energy budget diagrams had latent heat at 78 & 80 w/m**2 (they vary a bit) so my shit-simple quickie calculation I just did was 4%-6% bigger than correct, a good quick approximation. Is that the sort of question you were asking or were you asking something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ?

  • @evhwolfgang2003
    @evhwolfgang2003 Жыл бұрын

    Love this channel. "this is how the sausages are made" made me lol for real. I'm really glad you're able to do this.

  • @juddnichol8504

    @juddnichol8504

    Жыл бұрын

    Silly sausage

  • @gabrielapetrie
    @gabrielapetrie Жыл бұрын

    This is going to prove so useful for a lot of people for a long(-ish?) time!

  • @janboreczek3045
    @janboreczek30457 ай бұрын

    Yeah, this "Principles of planetary climates" by Pierrehumbert is a really great book, I do love it. The relevant processes and the physics is described really well

  • @stanislavpospisil7967

    @stanislavpospisil7967

    4 ай бұрын

    It is pure nonsense.

  • @briken2539
    @briken25396 ай бұрын

    Thank you Sabine, here's a suggestion: what if you placed your improved diagram of the process at the start of the talk and then explained why, in terms of the arrows. That ways, your audience is following from your conclusion back to it's origin.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    6 ай бұрын

    Yep

  • @pecan11
    @pecan1111 ай бұрын

    I am so glad I understand this better now. It’s an energy issue! This really helped me grasp the concept better and I definitely agree that your proposed graphic w arrows is far better than old way!! Thx for researching

  • @seanLee-sk2mi

    @seanLee-sk2mi

    4 ай бұрын

    you become dumber listening to her.

  • @naughtrussel5787
    @naughtrussel5787 Жыл бұрын

    Thank you, Sabine! Your video is of much use indeed!

  • @sonjamaria2116
    @sonjamaria21168 ай бұрын

    Wieviel Kohlendioxyd ist eigentlich in der Luft / Athmosphäre? Gibt es Messungen bzw.langfristige Vergleiche? Greetings from Austria

  • @enderwiggin1113

    @enderwiggin1113

    8 ай бұрын

    Die Messungen gibt es schon seit etwa 150 Jahren (und für ca. 1 Mio Jahre davor lassen sich Werte aus Eisbohrkernen ermitteln). Seit dem 19. Jhdt. ist der Anteil von 0,028% auf 0,042% angestiegen (also eine Erhöhung um 50%!!), letzteres entspricht sind 3,3 *BILLIONEN TONNEN* bzw. etwa 6,5 kg über jedem Quadratmeter der Erde.

  • @anticorncob6
    @anticorncob67 ай бұрын

    Thanks for trying to explain. I tried understanding but got very lost, especially after you explained that the temperature increases again after a certain height. I'll keep watching and hoping I get it.

  • @grindupBaker

    @grindupBaker

    7 ай бұрын

    The "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" don't cause the temperature to increases again after a certain height. Sunshine has ~10% of its radiation as vicious stuff like towards X-rays and Gamma rays that gives people radiation poisoning. BUT way up like 100 km the atmosphere stops essentially all of it by the radiation (called UV-C) busting apart N2 & O2 that are almost all of air. Then they recombine. This energy heats that bit "the thermosphere". Because it's coming in from above the top gets the Lion's share so thermosphere is hotter at the top. Same thing for stratosphere you were talking about except it's UV-B from the Sun busting ozone that stops the UV-B and its energy makes stratosphere hotter at the top because it's coming in from the top. Troposphere at the bottom is constantly mixed from bottom to top because warm air rise and the Sun keeps warming the surface, that's what causes clouds & wind. So troposphere is coldest at the top and top is closest to space so the H2O, CO2 & CH4 don't make much radiation because it's cold up there and that's the "greenhouse effect" radiation up towards space reduced because the molecules are cold compared with the surface. Since the Sun's UV-B busting ozone O3 heated the top of stratosphere more than its bottom then the H2O, CO2 & CH4 molecules at the top make more radiation than at the bottom because they are hotter (which means they bash N2 & O2 more often and harder, which is what makes this radiation). That's enough I'm done you're on your own now.

  • @tristan7216
    @tristan7216 Жыл бұрын

    Your explanations are always useful. This one's going to take a rewatch or two to fully get but it already makes sense. Your explanation of free will said in under 12 minutes what Sam Harris's tortured arguments could not in an hour long TED talk, and the physics framing made it easy for me to realize later on that it actually depends on the frame of reference of the observer (from your own perspective you do, because all your internal arguments and agonizing are part of the big machine and you can't take any short cuts to the decisions you make, which is experientially indistinguishable from free will, but to an omniscient external observer you don't, because it's all just particles colliding predictably if you have all information about an instant in time and a big enough computer).

  • @annaclarafenyo8185

    @annaclarafenyo8185

    Жыл бұрын

    This video is a form of global warming denial, but unintentionally so, because Sabine just doesn't understand this stuff. Extra CO2 just leads to a longer path-to-escape for each photon from earth, because of extra scattering. There are no complications, nothing else to say. The layers don't matter. There is no overlapping frequency. There is nothing. The whole video is a lie.

  • @tristan7216

    @tristan7216

    Жыл бұрын

    @@annaclarafenyo8185 she did not appear to be denying AGW, I understood that much.

  • @annaclarafenyo8185

    @annaclarafenyo8185

    Жыл бұрын

    @@tristan7216 She isn't denying global warming on purpose, she doesn't understand her role. She is having long discussions with pseudo-scientist deniers, who feed her 'facts', while she tries "rebutting" their 'facts' by taking them seriously and trying to answer them herself. She gets no help from a literature search, because these points are so foolish that no scientist who is an expert in the field would ever respond to such asinine insincere claims. She therefore ends up 'responding' to these claims by giving them WAY too much credit, and ends up propping up these lies indirectly, by seeming to acknowledge that they have some merit, when they have zero merit. An example is the claim that there is a saturation of absorption at different wavelength. She responds to this 'fact' by saying "There is broadening of the wavelength range at the edges". What? WHAT? NO! Absolutely not! There is no saturation effect of scattering, the scattering just leads to a longer path of escape for each thermal photon into space. It makes no difference at what altitude the photon scatters, or what fraction of photons of that wavelength have scattered at that altitude! This point is false from start to finish, it is entirely made up by a person whose only job is propaganda and lying. But Sabine doesn't know how to rebut it, she can't say "but this is rubbish from start to finish!" because she is not an expert in anything. This is her only purpose in life, this is why the right wing found this obscure person and raised her to minor stardom. Her only role is to be 'skeptical' toward climate scientists. Right wingers are scouring the dregs of academia for people like her, because they are desperate to 'rebut' climate science. She deserves no empathy, just a bit of education on her role.

Келесі