fantastic rundown. you're a great communicator

Error 2: co2 is only 0.04% a trace gas. Vapor is 1-4% in the air albeit a shorter residence time. Vapor is receptive to more IR w/l than CO2.

@grindupBaker

Жыл бұрын

So then Mister British Primary School B-Student what is the ratio of CO2 Moles to N2 Moles throughout altitudes 6-12 km above the surface (like 8-16 km in tropics and 5-9 km near Poles) ? And then what is the ratio of H2O gas Moles to N2 Moles throughout altitudes 6-12 km above the surface ? Eh Mister British Primary School B-Student.

@kimlibera663

Жыл бұрын

@@grindupBaker N2 is 78% or 780,000 ppm. CO2 is 0.04% or 400 ppm.

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

@@kimlibera663 So then Mister British Primary School B-Student what is the ratio of CO2 Moles to N2 Moles throughout altitudes 6-12 km above the surface (like 8-16 km in tropics and 5-9 km near Poles) ? And then what is the ratio of H2O gas Moles to N2 Moles throughout altitudes 6-12 km above the surface ? Eh Mister British Primary School B-Student.

@QT5656

5 ай бұрын

You are either commenting in bad faith or simply ignorant. Yes water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas however water vapor is not a driver of climate change, it is an amplifier (a positive feedback just as the video describes at 2:00). The amount of water in the atmosphere varies over a matter of days and by region according to air temperature and the availability of water for evaporation. By contrast CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and can accumulate at high latitudes (where the poles are). Water has a residence time of only a few days unlike CO2 which can be in the atmosphere for years. If it was water vapor that was driving the recent warming then the greatest warming would be seen in summer and at low latitudes - the opposite of what is actually observed. Again as the video explains at (2:17) the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing in recent decades because of anthropogenic CO2 which has warmed the troposphere. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuels is a net addition of water vapor to the system. Further reading: - Al‐Ghussain 2019. Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), pp.13-21. - Bengtsson 2010. The global atmospheric water cycle. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), p.025202. - Santer et al. 2007. Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), pp.15248-15253.

@QT5656

5 ай бұрын

@@grindupBaker Perhaps you are so badly informed that you just don't realise how badly informed you are.

According to the IPCC the the Earth without an an atmosphere would be -18 degrees. They say the atmosphere adds 33 degrees. The calculations they use average out the solar radiation over the entire Earths surface. This works as long as you assume there is no nighttime on Earth. If you calculate in a more accurate way, accounting for the angle of incidence and rotation, the amount of temperature added is 0.1 degrees. Also you have not mentioned the effect of saturation of energy absorption by CO2 molecules.

thanks a lot

you really simplified it! thank you!!

@nickbagnall

10 ай бұрын

But it's wrong, nonsense... kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html

@boguslawszostak1784

10 ай бұрын

There is a misspelling in the title; instead of 'understanding,' it should be 'misunderstanding' Radiative Forcing (Misunderstanding Climate ) "There is generally something called radiative forcing, which force an additional radiation of the planet's surface te make energy balance. However, its effect has been incorrectly presented. It is impossible to understand radiative forcing by considering only energy; one must demonstrate the differences in energy transmission towards the planet and towards space. There is no reason to believe that this additional radiative forcing is a function of 'doubling' the content or 'optical thickness' of any atmospheric component. Additional forcing depends strongly on other parameters, including existing concentrations, so it is entirely useless as a parameter for modeling or understanding. It is possible that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been so high for a long time that its changes practically have no impact on additional radiative forcing, as is the case with water vapor."

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

You provided a link to banal drivel. @@nickbagnall

You have an error here. Temp facilitates co2, not the other way around. CO2 lags warming.

@nickbagnall

10 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html

@kimlibera663

8 ай бұрын

No one disputes its role as a greenhouse gas. What the public is not being informed is is the primary processes that make up our weather.@@ThuderDuck

@nickbagnall

8 ай бұрын

​ @@ThuderDuck Saturation also occures at 200ppm reducing the effect...

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

@@nickbagnall "Saturation also occures at 200ppm reducing the effect..." == Ignorant bull shit

At current concentrations, at what altitude above the surface will CO2 have absorbed 70.7% of the IR radiation within the IR window in which water vapor is not significantly obstructing CO2’s radiation?

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

Not at any altitude because BY DEFINITION the "atmospheric window" is the range of frequencies that goes uninterrupted to space (it's 20 w/m**2, 5% of surface emission, 8% of Earth's radiation to space).

@thomasmartin406

6 ай бұрын

@@grindupBaker LOL - the albedo varies from 28% to 36% due to clouds/ice/water vaopr/aerosol's so that is well over 100 watts/M^2 of energy difference before it ever gets to the surface to contribute to long wave IR. So the alleged contribution of the magical feedback loop from CO2 is an insignificant piece of the daily noise. Besides - there is no experimental evidence of an actual warming 2.7F or more from doubling CO2 - but hey - why would some one interested in physical sciences want to see repeatable experiments. Oh - CO2 IS highly absorptive and emissive so when convection carries it up into upper troposphere - it cools even faster.

"The laws of thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown." --Albert Einstein The 2nd law of thermodynamics mandate that a colder object (the atmosphere) cannot warm a hotter object (the Earth's surface.) The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect breaks this law, and must be refuted. The 1st law of thermodynamics is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The surface cannot be heated by it's own energy. The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect breaks this law also. The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect breaks both the 1st and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Conclusion: THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT!

@yourguard4

Ай бұрын

The atmosphere doesnt heat up the ground. It makes the ground cool down slower. What you call "hypothesis" are strawman.

It's looking pretty much like this: Portion w/m**2 100% 3.71 Double the CO2 +110% 4.08 Water vapour increase and lapse rate change feedbacks +25% 0.93 Arctic Ocean Spring & Summer sea ice reduction feedback +25% 0.93 Arctic region land Spring & Summer snow reduction feedback +70% 2.60 Cloud changes, mostly reduction of the tropical ocean cloud deck feedback 330% 12.25 Total So global warming at 1 degree per 3.2 w/m**2 is 12.25 / 3.2 = 3.8 degrees over 2,000 years (the ocean heating time) which would be 2.3 degrees over 100 years then 1.0 degrees more over another 300 years, then the remaining 0.5 degrees more over another 1,600 years. There are 25 separate paleo climate analyses over thousands and millions of years that did find 3.6 +/- 0.6 degrees as the doubled CO2 warming that actually happened before. It's called PALEOSENS project.

@nickbagnall

10 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/pYV9ubmQdcm8Z8o.html

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.

you missed the big one water vapour.

@driftwood1942

2 жыл бұрын

2:15

@boguslawszostak1784

10 ай бұрын

@@driftwood1942 The description at 2:15 presents a serious problem. It suggests that more heat leads to more water vapor, which in turn results in more heat. However, we are well aware that there is some feedback mechanism at play, which means that despite significant fluctuations in water vapor concentrations, we do not observe corresponding temperature changes. Why should we assume that the same feedback mechanism won't mitigate the effects of changes in CO2 concentration, and that the observed warming has entirely different causes?

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

@@boguslawszostak1784 You have a massive lapse of logic in regards to elapsed time. You are thinking of a planet without an ocean, a, common mistake for brains that are suitable for washing cars but not much else.

@QT5656

5 ай бұрын

You are either commenting in bad faith or simply ignorant. Yes water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas however water vapor is not a driver of climate change, it is an amplifier (a positive feedback just as the video describes at 2:00). The amount of water in the atmosphere varies over a matter of days and by region according to air temperature and the availability of water for evaporation. By contrast CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and can accumulate at high latitudes (where the poles are). Water has a residence time of only a few days unlike CO2 which can be in the atmosphere for years. If it was water vapor that was driving the recent warming then the greatest warming would be seen in summer and at low latitudes - the opposite of what is actually observed. Again as the video explains at (2:17) the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing in recent decades because of anthropogenic CO2 which has warmed the troposphere. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuels is a net addition of water vapor to the system. Further reading: - Al‐Ghussain 2019. Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), pp.13-21. - Bengtsson 2010. The global atmospheric water cycle. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), p.025202. - Santer et al. 2007. Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), pp.15248-15253.

To the people in the comments who like to feel that the recent warming is not because of anthropogenic CO2 and that it's not going to continue to get warmer until CO2 emissions are curbed... you'll need to come up with a hypothesis that explains why: - warming is happening faster at high latitudes, - nights are warming faster than days, - winters are warming faster than summers, - ocean pH is decreasing, - the ratio of atmospheric 13C/12C has changed the way it has, Further reading: - Hausfather et al. 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378. - Lacis et al. 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), 356-359. - Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884), 239-244.

@thomasmartin406

5 ай бұрын

Aside from correlation is not proof of causation - Actually it is incumbent upon those who propose their hypothesis to provide the repeatable experiment that demonstrates their core premise that doubling CO2 from 420ppm CO2 to 840ppm raises a parcel of air's temp 2.7F or more. An experiment that isolates out a solar system of variables to just changes in CO2 concentration.

@QT5656

5 ай бұрын

@@thomasmartin406 😂 What "solar system" variables do you think can account for the recent warming which scientists haven't been measuring? The Sun is measured in detail and it's not the Sun. Your alternative explanation will also have to explain stratospheric cooling which is another correct prediction made by climate scientists (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967) that can be accounted for by anthropogenic CO2. Regardless. the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures has been understood for over 100 years. Projections from the 1970s from multiple studies (including those of Exxon) match current observations (Supran et al. 2023). As atmospheric CO2 continues to increase so does average global temperatures *with no sign of levelling off* as shown by multiple parallel datasets (e.g. satellite data, ground station data, and data from ships and buoys). You have nothing except wishful thinking. Further reading (even though you clearly ignored the last set I provided): - Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R.T., 1967. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. Journal of Atmospheric Science 24 (3): 241-259 - Supran G, Rahmstorf S. and Oreskes N. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063.

@nigelliam153

13 күн бұрын

Why can’t computer models predict the temperature from 3000bc to 10000bc when temperature was over 1deg C above present and co2 around 200ppm. NOAA data set

Temp forces H2O and CO2 and H2O has a negative feedback so no runaway and no mainly human caused global warming.

The CO2 -> Temp -> H2O illustration is misleading. It should be Temp -> H2O + CO2 in some cases. There's no consistent historical record showing that CO2 always leads increas in T and more evidence that it is often the other way 'round. Furthermore, the forcing effect can be positive or negative based on the temperature, so it would be mostly forcing cooling over Antarctica or wherever T=190K, for example.

Re. "Positive Feedback" The evaporation and convection of water from the Earth surface take out heat transporting it higher in the atmosphere where the temp is lower. Your hypothesis that this water vapor cause "back-radiation" of the same heat back to the earth, and warm the Earth surface even more (breaking both the 1st and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.) The so-called "positive feedback." Fact is that only a tiny fraction of this heat taken out of the Earth's surface (both convection and radiation) will be radiated back in the form of long wave infrared radiation. Even if this colder radiation was absorbed (which it is not), more heat is going out than coming back and you have a cooling event in any case. Let's say, in a hypothetical dream world, 100% is radiated back and nothing in other directions, then you get back the same amount you lost in the out-radiation. Q minus Q is ZERO, even with 100% back radiation! Your theory is beyond any reality!🤡🤡🤡 And you hypothesis is totally flawed and easily refuted.

None of this matters or happens without the Sun, 100%

This video is accurate. It isn't at all comprehensive (too brief) but it is accurate.

@nickbagnall

6 ай бұрын

How would you know?

@grindupBaker

5 ай бұрын

@@nickbagnall Because the physics is simple and I've studied the physics enough to know.

@QT5656

5 ай бұрын

@@nickbagnall Because they have clearly have a better grasp of science than you.

I think this notion of 'radiative forcing' needs careful examination. The IPCC published an energy balance model that is inconsistent. In the IPCC model, there are unbalanced energy inputs. There is no acknowledgement that energy flows laterally in the atmosphere - from the lower latitudes to the polar regions. The photochemistry of ozone is not even mentioned in your presentation (the IPCC ignores the stratosphere and publishes an emissivity model that implies it doesn't even exist) - this gas is much more significant in controlling Earth's emissivity than CO2. You also neglect to point out that water vapour turns to rain. Water dynamics in the atmosphere is massively important and not completely understood. It is worth noting that a hurricane is a heat pump that in a day pumps more energy into the stratosphere than the entire US energy generation for a year! You ask us to believe that CO2 is the demon gas?!? Worldwide emissions of this gas are responsible for some completely unphysical amplification of energy in the atmosphere?!? This IPCC asks us to ignore energy conservation and the second law of thermodynamics?!? Climate is changing ... it has been doing so for about 4.8 billion years. The non-linear dynamics of climate are not all at instantaneous (radiative) timescales ... unlike radiative models, convective and conductive cycles range from years to decades (and possibly 100's of years). ENSO the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and tropical cyclones are examples. The dogma is that solar radiation is not a driver - but sunspot activity alters the UV input intensity by upwards of a factor of 10! This is fine if you ignore O3 photochemistry and stratospheric warming. The IPCC climate models are NOT right; the problem is that they are NOT EVEN wrong.

The albedo/atmosphere make the Earth cooler not warmer. Yes or no? If no pls ‘splain. The GHGs must absorb “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. (aka Radiative Forcing) The kinetic energy heat transfer processes in the contiguous atmospheric molecules make surface BB impossible as also demonstrated by experiment. Agree or disagree? If disagree pls ‘splain. If both or either of these points is correct the greenhouse effect is not. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven global warming or climate change. RF is akin to caloric, phlogiston and luminiferous ether. A made up, hocus pocus, handwavium explanation for the GHE. Neither are real. Version 1.0 120721

@grindupBaker

Жыл бұрын

Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo .... " Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer .... " Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere .... " The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this: --------- "GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzread.info/dash/bejne/nXlluKR8pJutfMY.html at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational kinetic energy by absorbing a photon of LWR radiation or by collision. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzread.info/dash/bejne/nXlluKR8pJutfMY.html at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above. - The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect). - The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero. --------- Cartoons or text that describe a "greenhouse effect" in which photons from the surface are absorbed by infrared-active gas molecules and then are re-emitted with 50% of it going down and warming the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. Explanations of the "greenhouse effect" which include phrases like "the radiation from the surface does not directly heat the atmosphere" are incorrect because there are simple laboratory experiments which prove that infrared radiation does indeed heat the CO2 infrared-active gas and its surroundings (which means, of course, that molecular vibrational kinetic energy is converted on collision to molecular translational kinetic energy before it happened to "thermally relax" and emit a photon and thus no photon was "re-emitted" in that case). ++++++++++ Cloudy winter nights don't cool as much as clear-sky winter nights. It is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere which causes that. The effect that I just described is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere.

@nickbagnall

10 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html

@boguslawszostak1784

10 ай бұрын

In general, gases don't behave as perfect blackbodies. Why do we assume that the radiating gas acts as a perfect blackbody? However, if you have demonstrated that the described mechanism cannot cause the greenhouse effect, it does not mean that this effect does not exist; it means it has a different mechanism, if it exists.

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.

@thomasmartin406

6 ай бұрын

The albedo varies from 28% to 36%. that is energy that never makes it to the surface to convert to InfraRed or reflect back and forth to magically cause a 3 or 4w/m^2 warming as alleged by a 0.04 increase in atmospheric CO2 due to clouds/ice/particulates . Maybe 4% of the total differences we experience, IF the CO2 warming story is true and I still await a repeatable experiment that shows that warming.

Wow! You expect intelligent people to believe this inadequate presentation? What happened to water vapour, the effect of ocean currents etc. Solar irradiation is very complex and it changes for many reasons yet you trivialise its importance. How about describing the radiative forcing mechanism? The real heat transfer process relies on the quantum mechanical process of IR absorption and thermalisation. Heat from the earths surface is principally conveyed by convection to the top of the troposphere. You also make no mention of greenhouse gas saturation or the fact that many of the absorption bands of greenhouse gases overlap. The situation is way more complex than your rather poor model. No wonder the public at large is confused and has so little understanding of what is really going on with our climate.

@grindupBaker

6 ай бұрын

This video deals with a specific set of topics and is silent on others. This video is accurate. It isn't at all comprehensive (too brief) but it is accurate. There are innumerable explanations of the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere which you were desperate be included in this video and yet you were too lazy to find it in any others. Most descriptions vary between "ho hum" and "total crap" with the worst being "Sixty Symbols". Chemistry Crash is good, another one is good, Van Biezen is thorough but falls down at the crucial juncture, but there's a couple of other OK-enough ones.

@roblouw1344

6 ай бұрын

I am definitely not lazy. If anybody is lazy it is you. You have not provided an adequate explanation of the complex subject of radiation. @@grindupBaker

@grindupBaker

5 ай бұрын

@@roblouw1344 "You have not provided". No point because no audience. "complex subject of radiation" == complex to bods with low brain function, shit simple to me.

@QT5656

5 ай бұрын

You are either commenting in bad faith or simply ignorant. Yes water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas however water vapor is not a driver of climate change, it is an amplifier (a positive feedback just as the video describes at 2:00). The amount of water in the atmosphere varies over a matter of days and by region according to air temperature and the availability of water for evaporation. By contrast CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and can accumulate at high latitudes (where the poles are). Water has a residence time of only a few days unlike CO2 which can be in the atmosphere for years. If it was water vapor that was driving the recent warming then the greatest warming would be seen in summer and at low latitudes - the opposite of what is actually observed. Again as the video explains at (2:17) the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has been increasing in recent decades because of anthropogenic CO2 which has warmed the troposphere. Moreover, burning hydrocarbons from fossil fuels is a net addition of water vapor to the system. Further reading: - Al‐Ghussain 2019. Global warming: review on driving forces and mitigation. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), pp.13-21. - Bengtsson 2010. The global atmospheric water cycle. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), p.025202. - Santer et al. 2007. Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), pp.15248-15253.

@roblouw1344

5 ай бұрын

My word you are tetchy! You have incorrectly explained the 'greenhouse' effect. I see no point in further discussion as you have clearly made up your mind that your view is correct and not open for debate. I would expect someone with an Oxford education to be a lot more open to debate. One day you will make the effort to find out the real reasons for the climate being what it is. @@QT5656