Scott, you're like most greenies, stubborn that you can't convince the other side. And no I don't have to follow Heartland or the oil companies. Rather it's having a degree in a field of which I in my graduate plan had to cover 4 sub-genres & then some.
@scottekoontz7 күн бұрын
"Skeptics": It's not CO2. Scientists: Then what is causing the abrupt warming that is obvious to all, including today's skeptics.
@andrewcallender403612 күн бұрын
Why is there no H2O shown in the list of radiative forcing chart compiled by the IPCC? The vast majority of radiative forcing in the atmosphere is caused by water vapor. This omission is stark. Something does not add up here.
@scottekoontz8 күн бұрын
There are entire sections in the IPCC reports. The claim that they omitted water vapor is odd since we all have access to the same info.
@kimlibera6637 күн бұрын
Because they don't want to alarm people that if we banned water, something required for life, that would be too egregious & too obvious. When it's hot & humid, why do you think people feel lethargic? Because the air is full of water vapor.
@carldavid1558Ай бұрын
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.
@enumeratenzАй бұрын
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.
@critiqueofthegothgf2 ай бұрын
you have no idea how valuable these videos are, professor Monks
@daNorse3 ай бұрын
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.
@daNorse3 ай бұрын
"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!
@yourguard42 ай бұрын
The atmosphere doesnt heat up the ground. It makes the ground cool down slower. What you call "hypothesis" are strawman.
@critiqueofthegothgf3 ай бұрын
fantastic rundown. you're a great communicator
@ninio95765 ай бұрын
These videos are so useful the only rlly informative series I've found on KZread, thank you ! : )
@QT56565 ай бұрын
The content of this video is very good. However, the sound quality is relatively poor. It would be worth reuploading with a cleaned up version of the sound or recording the script afresh.
@QT56565 ай бұрын
Excellent video.
@bulls_hit5 ай бұрын
Temp forces H2O and CO2 and H2O has a negative feedback so no runaway and no mainly human caused global warming.
@scottekoontz8 күн бұрын
And just like that, some science alliterate writing something they feel in their gut, and all climate science is wrong.
@brucefrykman82956 ай бұрын
Professor Monks is a is a social "science" propagandist who knows less than you do about human influence over the Earth's untold thousands of climates. Here are some real climate facts: 1) The Earth does not have "a" global climate to change 2) Human activities do indeed perturb local climates. Urban climates are quite a bit different from the the climates of forests, fields, farms, mountains, and bodies of water that lie adjacent to them' 3) Growing crops influence local climate in much the same way. 4) Dams and reservoirs also influence their local climates 5) All living matter influences local climate; 6) Deserts have greater climate extremes than green areas at the same latitudes Of all the things humans produce, CO2 has no "proven" influence over climate other than to help make the Earth "greener" None of the hundreds of climate models produced by "climate scientists" (bureaucrats) work; not now and not ever for one simple reason: you cannot model what you do not understand and they clearly do not understand any climate well enough to predict long term changes in any climate. This is provable So why is this clown trying to propagandize naive and ignorant children with his BS? Simple: its his political project; he believes that socialism actually works contrary to the mountains of evidence that it does not owing to fundamental human nature. He is too dim-witted to understand that schools grade students to create a hierarchy of performance strata, artificial and false though it is. He cannot reconcile this with the fact that socialism denies human hierarchies of performance strata. Fundamentally he confuses climate with weather, neither of which are scientifically quantifiable concepts. Climate is a second order generality describing very long term averages of the concept called weather; a first order generality. Both concepts have no metric and are therefore useless in any true scientific assessment.
@GulayDogan066 ай бұрын
thanks a lot
@QT56566 ай бұрын
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.
@thomasmartin4066 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.
@QT56566 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.
@nigelliam153Ай 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
@QT56567 күн бұрын
@@thomasmartin406 You clearly didn't read the references provided or know much about this topic. Projections from the 1970s match current observations. The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Arrhenius, Foote, Tyndall, Plass). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. lower atmosphere warming, upper atmosphere cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists (e.g. Callendar, Broecker, Manabe, Hansen) predicted it would. The evidence is measurable and extensive and comes from multiple independent sources. How many more years of warming do you need? 7? 14? 21?
@thomasmartin4065 күн бұрын
@@QT5656 Lol - I assume that those who claim doubling CO2 will torch the earth and those who claim that doubling CO2 will cool the earth are both wrong until I see an experiment that demonstrates their core premise. So far no experiment have I seen. Hansen has made many failed predictions - seems large parts of NY city are still well above water now and will remain as such contrary to alarming 1980's predictions. Gretta should of noticed that and picked a longer time frame. The notion that some how the cool air will heat the hot ground has to be a miss some where. The tampering of data by Michael Mann and his gang - their refusal to debate the topic with non believers helped convert me from a true believer in mann made global warming to skeptical enough that I want to see a repeatable experiment. An experiment that demonstrates doubling CO2 will raise a parcel of air's temp by at least 2.7F as claimed by the warmist. The earth has had many natural swings in temperature with higher CO2 and occasionally lower. We can't see the granularity in the past as we can with the present - migration of atoms in ice cores or what ever proxies we get generalized temperatures on decadal levels while today we see and record minute by minute changes and convince our selves that the smoothed temps from the past magically mimic the granularity of today. And to think that the warming today is due to a single control knob of CO2 ignores a solar system of variables.. Oh - professor Monks list of green house gases kinda missed H2O - the gorilla on the block by orders of magnitude.
@enewhuis6 ай бұрын
Citing IPCC is borderline dishonest since they have confirmation bias and are primarily a political organization.
@enewhuis6 ай бұрын
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.
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
This video is accurate. It isn't at all comprehensive (too brief) but it is accurate.
@nickbagnall6 ай бұрын
How would you know?
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@@nickbagnall Because the physics is simple and I've studied the physics enough to know.
@QT56566 ай бұрын
@@nickbagnall Because they have clearly have a better grasp of science than you.
@beauxguss63216 ай бұрын
Lord Monkton produced a new formula for climate feedbacks that manages to do what the models the ICCC uses have never been able to do, predict the past. That is, applying his formula to a previous date (1850) it correctly predicted what we know happened all the way to the present. IPCC models have all grossly overshot these predictions. He gave a presentation on this at the Heartland Institute's last ICCC event. It is available on YT, you might want to check it out. kzread.info/dash/bejne/eYBqqpWzj5SonLQ.htmlsi=6RVnPZ49MSKL4i2C
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
Usual sort of Monkton drivel, Parroted by random nothingness "@beauxguss6321". In reality it's: 100% 1.17 CO2 doubled (or equivalent 3.71 w / m**2 that's staying in air for 2,000 years plus). 110% 1.29 H2O GHG increase and lapse rate change. 25% 0.29 Arctic Ocean ice reduction albedo reduction 25% 0.29 Arctic land snow albedo reduction 25% 0.29 Southern Ocean ice reduction albedo reduction 50% 0.59 reduction of the tropical-southern ocean cloud deck ------- ------- 335% 3.92 degrees total 25 separate paleo climate analyses over thousands and millions of years did find 3.6 +/- 0.6 degrees as the doubled CO2 warming that actually happened before. It's called PALEOSENS project. No doubt about it. It can be calculated as 2.8 degrees from what's already happened but there's increasing low cloud feedback yet to come plus possible Pattern Effect of the ocean. Incidentally, when I posted this science in the comments of the linked balderdash video a few minutes ago it was immediately deleted by "Heartland Institute" as they've done with many of my science comments just like this one. CENSORSHIP Banning dissenting science and presenting their preferred Drivel is the favoured strategy of the likes of "Heartland Institute" and its shills & Parrots.
@mplaw777 ай бұрын
A better understanding that does not violate the zeroth, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics kzread.info/dash/bejne/iIlklI-mptmtf7A.htmlsi=hXT_KLIPF3VEVrh3
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@mplaw77 == Clueless drivel. 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 zyoutubezkE1VBCt8GLc 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 zyoutubezkE1VBCt8GLc 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. --------- Diagrams 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 and warming the surface by going down to where it originated are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. The surface DOES NOT heat itself by its own radiation being absorbed and hen "re-emitted", radiated back at it. That explanation seen everywhere in the Social Media is junk science. 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. ------------------ at 2:37 at kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIKbr9t9grq9oqQ.html for 63,000 locations around Earth (grid pixels) at 20:09 at kzread.info/dash/bejne/pJuEj86wlpXakps.html (samples measured from space in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica)
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
At 4:16 "to cool down the Earth's surface" yet in another video he says that the Earth's surface is remarkably stable (he incorrectly claims 15.5 to 16.5 degrees over the last few billion years). Zhong has near-zero grasp of the English language. He doesn't understand what important phrases mean. This is one reason why an unacceptably-large portion of what comes out of his mouth is gobbledygook instead of clear, logical thought, his almost-non-existent grasp of the English language. Also, Costas & Shine 2012 assess the Atmospheric Window power as 20 +/- 4 w/m**2 from satellite instrument measurement analysis. Mmmmm, decisions, decisions, think I'll go with Costas & Shine analysis rather than going with another of Yong Zhong's crackpot "theories".
@roblouw13447 ай бұрын
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.
@grindupBaker6 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.
@roblouw13446 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
@grindupBaker6 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.
@QT56566 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.
@roblouw13446 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
@brewster568 ай бұрын
We shouldn’t trust the IPCC. Many predictions and models that this group has come out with just haven’t happened. I’m surprised that you didn’t mention Climate gate when the IPCC got caught manipulating data to support the famous hockey stick graph showing past and future temperature increases and only presented the data set that supported their narrative and eliminated the other. Instead you mentioned the glacier scandal and said that it happened because someone’s opinion slipped through by mistake. I can tell that you believe that global warming is entirely man made from watching some of your other videos like the one on greenhouse gases and concluded that the cause of global warming was CO2. Most of your content and presentations are very good but the conclusions are a stretch. I’m not convinced that man-made CO2 is the main cause of the warming that has taken place in the last century based on my review and my understanding of the principles of science.
@A3Kr0n8 ай бұрын
At 2:38 Is it really ethical to take your cat on an ice core sample mission? Even with a coat it's really cold.
@killjoyprose68028 ай бұрын
Why would you use maga conspiracy conservatives to demonstrate ecofascism.
@thomasmartin4069 ай бұрын
still waiting for the experiment that demonstrates the core premise of mann made global warming that doubling CO2 raises the air temp 2.7F to 8.1F.
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
A collection of words in which you state that you never studied any of it and you never will study any of it because you've zero interest. Fair enough stud (study, stud, get it everybody ?)
@thomasmartin4066 ай бұрын
@@grindupBaker This is a lame evasion.
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@@thomasmartin406 Continues to provide NOTHING additional to its total NOTHING that starts this thread.
@thomasmartin4066 ай бұрын
@@grindupBaker you are the noise. I ask for real science - show me the experiment. You act like a flim flam man who fears some one is calling out the game.
@PChel_0099 ай бұрын
Развивай канал и никогда не забрасывай! Toп!
@rodkeh9 ай бұрын
This idiot hasn't got the slightest idea of what climate is! This type of disinformation should be banned on the net!
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
Ah a strong believer in CENSORSHIP and in BANNING contrary thought. Methinks I've uncovered a Communist Dictator at work. Howdy Comradski.
@billbrown341410 ай бұрын
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?
@grindupBaker6 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).
@thomasmartin4066 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.
@franklinblunt6910 ай бұрын
None of this matters or happens without the Sun, 100%
@titiwhai11 ай бұрын
Evolutionary psychology can turn those ideas on their head? Eg people cannot NOT perceive race and ethnocentrism is the winning evolutionary strategy (as shown by computer modelling = we are superior no matter who we are). pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33564063/
@kootenaiforeststoriversini4460 Жыл бұрын
I've been going through your entire "Understanding Wildfire" playlist and have learned so much. Great job on these, and I love Professor Monks!
@grindupBaker Жыл бұрын
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.
@nickbagnall10 ай бұрын
kzread.info/dash/bejne/pYV9ubmQdcm8Z8o.html
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.
@kimlibera663 Жыл бұрын
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.
@grindupBaker6 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.
@QT56566 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.
@QT56566 ай бұрын
@@grindupBaker Perhaps you are so badly informed that you just don't realise how badly informed you are.
@kimlibera663 Жыл бұрын
You have an error here. Temp facilitates co2, not the other way around. CO2 lags warming.
@nickbagnall11 ай бұрын
kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html
@kimlibera6639 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
@nickbagnall9 ай бұрын
@@ThuderDuck Saturation also occures at 200ppm reducing the effect...
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@@nickbagnall "Saturation also occures at 200ppm reducing the effect..." == Ignorant bull shit
@jeffgold3091 Жыл бұрын
ice ages end when co2 is at a minimum and begin when co2 is at a maximum . co2 has little or nothing to do with the onset or ending of glacials and interglacials
@jeffgold3091 Жыл бұрын
because the hockey stick eliminated the recent proxy data which contradicted the hockey stick shape and substituted data from a different source, violating scientific standards . briffas data set from proxy data didn’t show a hockey stick so it was ignored . mann is a fraud
@pratyushkumardash4410 Жыл бұрын
Very much helpful. Thank you ❤️
@arlenerico8362 Жыл бұрын
くさんありますありがとうございます」、
@alexlopez5416 Жыл бұрын
くさんありますありがとうございます」、
@nxgrs742 жыл бұрын
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 .... <and some moronic drivel>" Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer .... <and some moronic drivel>" Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere .... <and then some moronic irrelevant babbling>" 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.
@nickbagnall11 ай бұрын
kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html
@boguslawszostak178410 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.
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.
@thomasmartin4066 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.
@nn-uj1iv2 жыл бұрын
you missed the big one water vapour.
@driftwood19422 жыл бұрын
2:15
@boguslawszostak178410 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?
@grindupBaker6 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.
@QT56566 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.
@zgall93 жыл бұрын
This is great! Really well done, thank you :)
@christinegreene19863 жыл бұрын
This is terrifying information.
@ritumishra6333 жыл бұрын
you really simplified it! thank you!!
@nickbagnall11 ай бұрын
But it's wrong, nonsense... kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html
@boguslawszostak178410 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."
@grindupBaker6 ай бұрын
You provided a link to banal drivel. @@nickbagnall
@-Zardoz-3 жыл бұрын
Lol actually teaching this dogma. And its a pathetic neck-beard too. This is fucking hilarious. What corporate/government toolbags.
@highbornhunter3 жыл бұрын
Also people near the WUI probably shouldn’t have gender reveal parties.
Пікірлер
Scott, you're like most greenies, stubborn that you can't convince the other side. And no I don't have to follow Heartland or the oil companies. Rather it's having a degree in a field of which I in my graduate plan had to cover 4 sub-genres & then some.
"Skeptics": It's not CO2. Scientists: Then what is causing the abrupt warming that is obvious to all, including today's skeptics.
Why is there no H2O shown in the list of radiative forcing chart compiled by the IPCC? The vast majority of radiative forcing in the atmosphere is caused by water vapor. This omission is stark. Something does not add up here.
There are entire sections in the IPCC reports. The claim that they omitted water vapor is odd since we all have access to the same info.
Because they don't want to alarm people that if we banned water, something required for life, that would be too egregious & too obvious. When it's hot & humid, why do you think people feel lethargic? Because the air is full of water vapor.
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.
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.
you have no idea how valuable these videos are, professor Monks
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.
"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!
The atmosphere doesnt heat up the ground. It makes the ground cool down slower. What you call "hypothesis" are strawman.
fantastic rundown. you're a great communicator
These videos are so useful the only rlly informative series I've found on KZread, thank you ! : )
The content of this video is very good. However, the sound quality is relatively poor. It would be worth reuploading with a cleaned up version of the sound or recording the script afresh.
Excellent video.
Temp forces H2O and CO2 and H2O has a negative feedback so no runaway and no mainly human caused global warming.
And just like that, some science alliterate writing something they feel in their gut, and all climate science is wrong.
Professor Monks is a is a social "science" propagandist who knows less than you do about human influence over the Earth's untold thousands of climates. Here are some real climate facts: 1) The Earth does not have "a" global climate to change 2) Human activities do indeed perturb local climates. Urban climates are quite a bit different from the the climates of forests, fields, farms, mountains, and bodies of water that lie adjacent to them' 3) Growing crops influence local climate in much the same way. 4) Dams and reservoirs also influence their local climates 5) All living matter influences local climate; 6) Deserts have greater climate extremes than green areas at the same latitudes Of all the things humans produce, CO2 has no "proven" influence over climate other than to help make the Earth "greener" None of the hundreds of climate models produced by "climate scientists" (bureaucrats) work; not now and not ever for one simple reason: you cannot model what you do not understand and they clearly do not understand any climate well enough to predict long term changes in any climate. This is provable So why is this clown trying to propagandize naive and ignorant children with his BS? Simple: its his political project; he believes that socialism actually works contrary to the mountains of evidence that it does not owing to fundamental human nature. He is too dim-witted to understand that schools grade students to create a hierarchy of performance strata, artificial and false though it is. He cannot reconcile this with the fact that socialism denies human hierarchies of performance strata. Fundamentally he confuses climate with weather, neither of which are scientifically quantifiable concepts. Climate is a second order generality describing very long term averages of the concept called weather; a first order generality. Both concepts have no metric and are therefore useless in any true scientific assessment.
thanks a lot
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.
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.
@@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.
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
@@thomasmartin406 You clearly didn't read the references provided or know much about this topic. Projections from the 1970s match current observations. The physical properties of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are known (e.g. Arrhenius, Foote, Tyndall, Plass). That understanding has been validated by practical outcomes (e.g. heat seeking missiles) and empirical observation that match predictions (e.g. lower atmosphere warming, upper atmosphere cooling, nights warming faster than days). Global temperatures are increasing due to CO2 as climate scientists (e.g. Callendar, Broecker, Manabe, Hansen) predicted it would. The evidence is measurable and extensive and comes from multiple independent sources. How many more years of warming do you need? 7? 14? 21?
@@QT5656 Lol - I assume that those who claim doubling CO2 will torch the earth and those who claim that doubling CO2 will cool the earth are both wrong until I see an experiment that demonstrates their core premise. So far no experiment have I seen. Hansen has made many failed predictions - seems large parts of NY city are still well above water now and will remain as such contrary to alarming 1980's predictions. Gretta should of noticed that and picked a longer time frame. The notion that some how the cool air will heat the hot ground has to be a miss some where. The tampering of data by Michael Mann and his gang - their refusal to debate the topic with non believers helped convert me from a true believer in mann made global warming to skeptical enough that I want to see a repeatable experiment. An experiment that demonstrates doubling CO2 will raise a parcel of air's temp by at least 2.7F as claimed by the warmist. The earth has had many natural swings in temperature with higher CO2 and occasionally lower. We can't see the granularity in the past as we can with the present - migration of atoms in ice cores or what ever proxies we get generalized temperatures on decadal levels while today we see and record minute by minute changes and convince our selves that the smoothed temps from the past magically mimic the granularity of today. And to think that the warming today is due to a single control knob of CO2 ignores a solar system of variables.. Oh - professor Monks list of green house gases kinda missed H2O - the gorilla on the block by orders of magnitude.
Citing IPCC is borderline dishonest since they have confirmation bias and are primarily a political organization.
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.
This video is accurate. It isn't at all comprehensive (too brief) but it is accurate.
How would you know?
@@nickbagnall Because the physics is simple and I've studied the physics enough to know.
@@nickbagnall Because they have clearly have a better grasp of science than you.
Lord Monkton produced a new formula for climate feedbacks that manages to do what the models the ICCC uses have never been able to do, predict the past. That is, applying his formula to a previous date (1850) it correctly predicted what we know happened all the way to the present. IPCC models have all grossly overshot these predictions. He gave a presentation on this at the Heartland Institute's last ICCC event. It is available on YT, you might want to check it out. kzread.info/dash/bejne/eYBqqpWzj5SonLQ.htmlsi=6RVnPZ49MSKL4i2C
Usual sort of Monkton drivel, Parroted by random nothingness "@beauxguss6321". In reality it's: 100% 1.17 CO2 doubled (or equivalent 3.71 w / m**2 that's staying in air for 2,000 years plus). 110% 1.29 H2O GHG increase and lapse rate change. 25% 0.29 Arctic Ocean ice reduction albedo reduction 25% 0.29 Arctic land snow albedo reduction 25% 0.29 Southern Ocean ice reduction albedo reduction 50% 0.59 reduction of the tropical-southern ocean cloud deck ------- ------- 335% 3.92 degrees total 25 separate paleo climate analyses over thousands and millions of years did find 3.6 +/- 0.6 degrees as the doubled CO2 warming that actually happened before. It's called PALEOSENS project. No doubt about it. It can be calculated as 2.8 degrees from what's already happened but there's increasing low cloud feedback yet to come plus possible Pattern Effect of the ocean. Incidentally, when I posted this science in the comments of the linked balderdash video a few minutes ago it was immediately deleted by "Heartland Institute" as they've done with many of my science comments just like this one. CENSORSHIP Banning dissenting science and presenting their preferred Drivel is the favoured strategy of the likes of "Heartland Institute" and its shills & Parrots.
A better understanding that does not violate the zeroth, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics kzread.info/dash/bejne/iIlklI-mptmtf7A.htmlsi=hXT_KLIPF3VEVrh3
@mplaw77 == Clueless drivel. 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 zyoutubezkE1VBCt8GLc 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 zyoutubezkE1VBCt8GLc 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. --------- Diagrams 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 and warming the surface by going down to where it originated are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. The surface DOES NOT heat itself by its own radiation being absorbed and hen "re-emitted", radiated back at it. That explanation seen everywhere in the Social Media is junk science. 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. ------------------ at 2:37 at kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIKbr9t9grq9oqQ.html for 63,000 locations around Earth (grid pixels) at 20:09 at kzread.info/dash/bejne/pJuEj86wlpXakps.html (samples measured from space in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica)
At 4:16 "to cool down the Earth's surface" yet in another video he says that the Earth's surface is remarkably stable (he incorrectly claims 15.5 to 16.5 degrees over the last few billion years). Zhong has near-zero grasp of the English language. He doesn't understand what important phrases mean. This is one reason why an unacceptably-large portion of what comes out of his mouth is gobbledygook instead of clear, logical thought, his almost-non-existent grasp of the English language. Also, Costas & Shine 2012 assess the Atmospheric Window power as 20 +/- 4 w/m**2 from satellite instrument measurement analysis. Mmmmm, decisions, decisions, think I'll go with Costas & Shine analysis rather than going with another of Yong Zhong's crackpot "theories".
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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
We shouldn’t trust the IPCC. Many predictions and models that this group has come out with just haven’t happened. I’m surprised that you didn’t mention Climate gate when the IPCC got caught manipulating data to support the famous hockey stick graph showing past and future temperature increases and only presented the data set that supported their narrative and eliminated the other. Instead you mentioned the glacier scandal and said that it happened because someone’s opinion slipped through by mistake. I can tell that you believe that global warming is entirely man made from watching some of your other videos like the one on greenhouse gases and concluded that the cause of global warming was CO2. Most of your content and presentations are very good but the conclusions are a stretch. I’m not convinced that man-made CO2 is the main cause of the warming that has taken place in the last century based on my review and my understanding of the principles of science.
At 2:38 Is it really ethical to take your cat on an ice core sample mission? Even with a coat it's really cold.
Why would you use maga conspiracy conservatives to demonstrate ecofascism.
still waiting for the experiment that demonstrates the core premise of mann made global warming that doubling CO2 raises the air temp 2.7F to 8.1F.
A collection of words in which you state that you never studied any of it and you never will study any of it because you've zero interest. Fair enough stud (study, stud, get it everybody ?)
@@grindupBaker This is a lame evasion.
@@thomasmartin406 Continues to provide NOTHING additional to its total NOTHING that starts this thread.
@@grindupBaker you are the noise. I ask for real science - show me the experiment. You act like a flim flam man who fears some one is calling out the game.
Развивай канал и никогда не забрасывай! Toп!
This idiot hasn't got the slightest idea of what climate is! This type of disinformation should be banned on the net!
Ah a strong believer in CENSORSHIP and in BANNING contrary thought. Methinks I've uncovered a Communist Dictator at work. Howdy Comradski.
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?
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).
@@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.
None of this matters or happens without the Sun, 100%
Evolutionary psychology can turn those ideas on their head? Eg people cannot NOT perceive race and ethnocentrism is the winning evolutionary strategy (as shown by computer modelling = we are superior no matter who we are). pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33564063/
I've been going through your entire "Understanding Wildfire" playlist and have learned so much. Great job on these, and I love Professor Monks!
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.
kzread.info/dash/bejne/pYV9ubmQdcm8Z8o.html
@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.
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.
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.
@@grindupBaker N2 is 78% or 780,000 ppm. CO2 is 0.04% or 400 ppm.
@@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.
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.
@@grindupBaker Perhaps you are so badly informed that you just don't realise how badly informed you are.
You have an error here. Temp facilitates co2, not the other way around. CO2 lags warming.
kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html
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
@@ThuderDuck Saturation also occures at 200ppm reducing the effect...
@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.
@@nickbagnall "Saturation also occures at 200ppm reducing the effect..." == Ignorant bull shit
ice ages end when co2 is at a minimum and begin when co2 is at a maximum . co2 has little or nothing to do with the onset or ending of glacials and interglacials
because the hockey stick eliminated the recent proxy data which contradicted the hockey stick shape and substituted data from a different source, violating scientific standards . briffas data set from proxy data didn’t show a hockey stick so it was ignored . mann is a fraud
Very much helpful. Thank you ❤️
くさんありますありがとうございます」、
くさんありますありがとうございます」、
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
Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo .... <and some moronic drivel>" Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "The Earth is cooler with the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer .... <and some moronic drivel>" Moronic Dunning-Kruger graduate imbecile "Nick Schroeder" typed "Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere .... <and then some moronic irrelevant babbling>" 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.
kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html
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.
@@nickbagnall You provided a link to banal drivel.
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.
you missed the big one water vapour.
2:15
@@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?
@@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.
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.
This is great! Really well done, thank you :)
This is terrifying information.
you really simplified it! thank you!!
But it's wrong, nonsense... kzread.info/dash/bejne/gml826apj63NlJs.html
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."
You provided a link to banal drivel. @@nickbagnall
Lol actually teaching this dogma. And its a pathetic neck-beard too. This is fucking hilarious. What corporate/government toolbags.
Also people near the WUI probably shouldn’t have gender reveal parties.