I've been watching your videos since middle school, and I'm currently in College right now, and I couldn't find any other youtube channel that helps me so much like yours. I wish you were my professor! Great content! Thank you so much!
I would strongly encourage Mr. Anderson to consider his usage of "radiation" and "heat" which are not the same (but can be converted from one to the other). I would encourage anyone watching this video to find videos about light absorption, the definition of heat and atomic spectra to get a more fundamental picture of what is happening.
Agreed. His random interchanging of "heat" and "IR" as if there was no difference made me a bit queasy. IR is only heat insofar as it is able to interact with molecules. The absorption of IR will increase the KE of absorbing molecules, which can be thought of as an increase in temperature, or "heat." We feel the warmth of IR because the atoms on the surface of our skin can absorb IR and increase their KE. It is the opposite with generating IR: any IR photon generated at the earth's surface results in a decrease in KE equal to the energy of the photon, and so as the earth emits IR, the result is a decrease in temperature. The IR photon itself is not heat; the heat we think of is only due to how IR interacts with atoms. Although CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb IR and thus increase their KE, this is only momentary since that IR is soon re-emitted, and so KE then decreases. The overall effect of IR absorption by greenhouse gases is NOT an increase in temperature, but rather a redistribution of IR either back to earth, where it is reabsorbed, or lost to space, where it adds to the total loss of energy by the earth. This is the tip of the iceberg for the mechanism of warming, none of which has been addressed here.
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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.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". 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") also 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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.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 also 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.
Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect). ------ So suppose I calculate how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen: - LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 - LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation). The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent). The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent). ------ That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant). ------------- So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.
There was no explanation of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Did I miss something. You were overly focused on albedo, but no explanation of how more greenhouse gases result in a warmer atmosphere. Also, there was no warming in 1750. That industrialization had negligible effect on greenhouse emissions. It was not until the latter half of the 19th century that industrialization grew to the point where emissions began affecting global temperature.
Are you saying that planets which do not have greenhouse gases will not have not have any temperature increase as you move towards the core. A gas planet like Jupiter has much higher temperature at its core than at the edge of the atmosphere. It does not have greenhouse gases. Also you do not explain how a surface at + 15c radiates the same energy into space as a surface at - 15c. Are you saying some of the energy never gets into Space, if so then surely the Earth would just keep getting hotter and hotter?
Why do the atmospheric molecules H2O, CO2, CH4 absorb infrared photons whereas N2 and O2 do not? I've heard it has something to do with the fact that H2O, CO2, CH4 are asymmetric molecules. But what exactly is the technical explanation of this?
during the dinosaur age, an age spanning more than 200 million years, the earth ranged from 1000-2000 ppm. Why didn't this cause an extreme earth burnup? I bet if you plugged in 2000 ppm into your program your computer would have exploded
"Why didn't this cause an extreme earth burnup?" The Sun's output was lower 200 million years ago, so 4.8 w/m**2 less for Earth which is the same effect as CO2 change from the present 425 to 935 so 935 ppmv CO2 then was the same as 425 ppmv now with the hotter Sun. The main reason by far though is that no scientist has stated that it'll "cause an extreme earth burnup" and that's just pathetic lazy C R A P that you made up.
Water vapour isn't really considered a green house gas because its concentration in the atmosphere is variable depending on air pressure and how much of it is evaporating/falling back down as rain or snow. Even if all the water in the world evaporated right now, it would all fall back down as rain because the atmosphere wouldn't be able to support its weight.
But water is the most abundant from all the gasses 4% (40 000 ppm) for CO2 is almost 400 ppm... Also, water has the highest latent heat, specific heat and absorption !
I don’t understand how the atmosphere is cold yet that somehow heats the surface of the earth? The higher you get into the atmosphere the colder it gets, so how can heat “radiate” from something that is cold?
It's all not so easy. You see that. Malicious "smart deniers" make it their hobby to point to all those things they guess we probably won't understand well to make us stumble. It's better to just give them a good link.. The way I understand it as layman for now: , the addition of CO2 means the whole column with CO2 in it expands higher and so the altitude at which the radiating upward = cooling effect of CO2 starts to dominate is higher too and it's colder there so the molecules radiate less infrared there then they previously (no humans, no extra CO2 added) did. That trapping effect near the surface alone is not sufficient to explain fully. There is also less IR radiating away to space. So there is more downward component and less upward component. GHG don't heat up but only slow down heat loss. The troposphere warms but the stratosphere cools down with GHG. It's in some way like a person using a blanket. He will be warmer but the other side of the room a little colder. The total energy in the room stays the same. There is no magical gain of energy.. skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
YES! Any reflection (not refraction!!!) of IR from glass is negligible compared to the glass preventing convection away from the greenhouse in terms of heating.
@@EvilMaxWar Because when you do work on gas, every one will heat when you press them. Gravity is doing that to the atmosphere. PV=nRT Plus R is the ideal gas constant. It is the same for all gases. It can also be derived from the microscopic kinetic theory, as was achieved (apparently independently) by August Krönig in 1856 and Rudolf Clausius in 1857.
@@deadendjesenice But they behave that same! A 6 different gas laws unite in PV=nRT! Work for 6 planets and one moon. Math agree with measurment. (the most for Venus)
@@deadendjesenice Molecules...noble gases aren't! And Gas law WORK even on them! See: ruclips.net/video/BuTmHCRJovc/видео.html Gas giants...thermal gradiance: ruclips.net/video/1Y_n283fYbc/видео.html and discusion about ideal gas law and greenhouse gas theory: Venus: ruclips.net/video/1Y_n283fYbc/видео.html Earth: ruclips.net/video/V0jdPQ9aGbY/видео.html
Maybe because this theory doesnt work in reality. Heat is not a radiation. It needs a medium to travel. And IR radiation is produced BY heat and cant turn into heat again. I think your teacher was a real scientist (following the scientific principles) and thats why he could not make sense of it.
But there is no balance using the greenhouse effect if I have a greenhouse and put tomatoes in there we're just a mist of water 2 minutes a day what would happen to my tomatoes they will burn up
5:18 If CO2 is trapped in the ice record, and by its nature - specially - traps heat, why doesn't it account for avalanche and snow pack instability? It is in the snowpack - at around a factor of 10 times more than the atmosphere, but no mention of it in literature or practice. If it did we'd know and we would measure monitor it. Or is it that it does cause avalanches, and I have made a great discovery. All avalanches are caused by the CO2 trapping/ changing heat in the snowpack.
It does not "trap" heat. It absorbs infrared radiation - just to re-emit it immediately into a random direction. Nothing to do with snow pack and avalanches.
The sophist simulation was done with solar infrared, the bright red bands,............. if it was an honest simulation he would have used the 15 micron lenght only,....... Then ofcourse he would have been faced with cold warming hot.
Classroom Demonstrations of the Greenhouse Effect (short videos)- #1 “Greenhouse in a Beaker” ruclips.net/video/UJp4-qCiPHU/видео.html #2 “Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2” ruclips.net/video/Ot5n9m4whaw/видео.html [Note: The above video about infrared absorption is, also, imbedded in the following excellent video about water vapor as a greenhouse gas (at the 4 minute mark): #3 ruclips.net/video/jdhnhknaJOg/видео.html
You should have pointed out that the incoming solar energy is running at a much higher frequency than the outbound, so it interacts differentially with atmospheric gasses.
You are assuming that the greenhouse gases are causing the heat, instead of the heat causing the increase in greenhouse gases. As you admit, you have no present way to measure the past water vapor, so you can't write off the importance of it's ability to bond with particles from outer space. The sun is not static, not only does it give us heat, it also effects the Earth's magnetic field, which effects the amount of particles that can enter the earth's atmosphere.
Thanks for the video. You are wrong about one thing, though. Ice cores do not represent a summer/winter cycle. They represent warm/cold cycles, which in some cases are as short as day/night, and sometimes longer, depending on when snow falls, how much the temperature rises during the day (which depends on the season), and how cold it gets at night, etc. For a layer to form, you need snow to fall, the warm a little so it starts to melt and packs together, which then freezes again at night. If more snow falls the next day, it could add to the layer or begin a whole new layer. Seasons with a lot of snowfall could see many layers form. We know this is true because airplanes that crash landed on the ice in Greenland in the 2nd World War (fewer than 80 years ago) were found buried not under 80 layers, but under 250-300 feet (75-90 meters) of ice layers. They did not sink into already existing layers, but were actually buried one layer at a time. The number of layers was consistent with what I stated above, but inconsistent with the uniformitarian concept that each layer represents an entire year or even season.
Disappointing. No explanation as to how the O2 and N2 molecules (the vast majority of the atmosphere) get heated by photons.......probably because they don't ditectly. If the excited CO2 collides with N2 or O2 molecules (a very likely event) the CO2 loses energy as heat to the N2 or O2 and then cannot emit a photon . Nor the fact that the majority of IR photons do NOT energise CO2 molecules either...... gases are not "black bodies" and the line spectra they absorb or emit come from a low % of all the all IR emitted from the earth's surface. Also, CO2 lasers work by having N2 molecules energised, and these then collide with CO2 molecules, excite some of them and then aa good number of the excited CO2 emits photons corresponding to the allowed frequencies (before losing energy as heat). The atmosphere has heaps of Nitrogen molecules and some of these have enough energy to excite the CO2 and trigger an emitted photon. As we get higher in the atmosphere, the rarified gases make collisions less frequent so less heating goes on and more of the excited CO2 emit a photon. CO2 lasers tht emit the wavelengths the fit within the normal range of IR photons emitted by the Earth can be used as range finders that can measure 20km. So CO2 emitted IR photons are known to travel a long way through Earth's atmosphere without being absorbed and causing any "greenhouse effect" as described in this video. The lower atmosphere heating is a measure of collisions between molecules, a very low % of which get energised by photons of the correct frequeny ,and which lose this acquired energy in collisions before emitting a photon themselves. These lower atmosphere CO2 also capture IR photons emitted down from higher in the atmosphere and turn it to heat rather than re-emitting down to Earth. Thus these photons annot directly heat the eath's surface.
Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect). ------ So suppose I calculate how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen: - LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 - LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation). The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent). The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent). ------ That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant). ------------- So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.
Are you saying that in the desert (where there is no water vapor because it's dry) at night time when it colds down that it's getting warmer at night? The green house gas is H2O and the humidity levels very. Are you prepared to shut down the economy with Carbon Taxes and force people to give up their lively hood that they rely on to live just to keep the CO2 levels down? Do you want to risk more nuclear melt downs by going to nuclear?
I believe he is speaking of the atmosphere of earth on average rather than a regions particular climate. The green house effect to me although theoretically possible has quite a lot of gaps in prediction and politically is being co-oped as a means to establish a dominance on the market because of cap and trade. Do not give up on Nuclear energy however as I feel progress could still be made.
JadeXTopaz Don't give up on nuclear energy because you FEEL progress can still be made? I can't to fucking tell you but that is offensive. To many children are dying of cancer and how many more nuclear meltdowns are we going to have? We had at least 5 of them. It's hard to know because they don't tell people when something goes wrong at the plant! Most of the energy we get are from Coal. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis. Ash is carbon based and that is used for fertilizer. you can't get more green than burning carbon! Humans irrigate water to desert climates. Landscaping the desert which us humans do means more of the planets surface is green! In nuclear power they still burn fossil fuels in every step of the way from mining to transportation of nuclear waste! Fuck you for supporting something that kills children!
***** It is true that alternate energy systems are under way. And they will REPLACE the dirty burning to get energy. The most promising is the geothermal energy plants. We still need energy from burning and we are NOT going to shut down the energy we are using right now. We are not going to burn the bridge we are walking on. Just let the free market work and everything will work out.
Hello Professor, would you or any of your expert friend's like to review my two complementary papers on quantum mechanics and the atmosphere? 'Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory' and 'The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers'. I have shown N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR photons, can prove it by experiment (Frank-Hertz experiment and other) and that the so-called GHGs are really only the thermoelectric gases - they also emit and absorb IR photons but are not special other than they are received by thermoelectric transducers - thermopiles originally. I have uncovered a lot of other misconceptions relevant to radiation theory. No one seems to like what I have uncovered, and I mean no one (climate sceptics that is); but equally, no one, no expert, has told me directly where I have am wrong. Please, direct comments to the preprint paper. Thank you in advance. www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory www.researchgate.net/publication/329311153_The_Greenhouse_Gases_and_Infrared_Radiation_Misconceived_by_Thermoelectric_Transducers
Because you're a crackpot so no one is going to pay attention to you. Search youtube for 'perpetual energy'. There are tons of people who are like you and JUST WISHED real scientists would listen to them. I once asked a professor if I could do a project debunking you nutjobs but he wouldnt let me "You shouldn't pay attention to crackpots" he told me. There entire subcategory at APS for all the Nuts who want to present, but they have NEVER produced anything of substance or groundbreaking. Yes we know you think it's all the tens of thousands of smart scientists that are wrong, but you should have some humility in your own ability to be wrong. Einsten convinced people of GR, Feynman convinced people of QED because the science is solid. Yours is not, which is why you can't even make it through peer review, let alone change a field. I for one would never have the arrogance you do. I have NEVER believed my own conviction over hundreds of experts I couldn't convince. You may be right, but in the history of science we'll be able to count on one hand the number of times a no-name completely upended a field. I'd be willing to give you 100-to-1 on bitcoin you wont be one of them. I know you won't believe any of this. YOu'll point me to your paper and say "hey look at this arcane plot I produced that proves them wrong". I wont do that. How about yYOU TRY THIS: and get some sit-down time with 10 radiation physicists (you'll probably have to drive between states because--as someone who was in academia--we would get emails from you nuts ALL THE TIME.) Present your case, and drill really deep to the MOST FUNDAMENTAL disagreement. There will be at least one. The experts will say that your absorption spectrum is wrong or your understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong at some FUNDAMENTAL point. Write down their logic and yours (you NEED to write it out so you can follow it). Then go and find 20 other experts that will deign to speak with you and ONLY ASK THEM ABOUT THIS **ONE** issue of contention. It will be something so fundamental that there is little room for interpretation. If all 20 people tell you you are wrong, then although neither us nor you can ULTIMATELY REALLY know who is right, at least you can die knowing that you as a less-experienced, independent researcher trusted yourself over 20-30 experts that said you were wrong on one of the most fundamental points of science which was never the genesis of paradigm shifts in science--it's just not how progress is made in science.
Sounds plausible, but is complete sophistry. These is no radiative greenhouse effect and CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere. The atmosphere helps to keep the earth warmer. But that is called insulation. And it is controlled by heat capacity, convection and latent heat exchange bywayof the water cycle. Your explanation is gibberish.
You're explanation about how the keeps warm temps doesn't make sense. Heat capacity or latent heat exchange has nothing to do with keeping heat in the atmosphere. Convection is a weather related process. If you can't understand the greenhouse effect, watch this video (ruclips.net/video/sTvqIijqvTg/видео.html )
Some of this is right, most of it is wrong. 1750 was toward the end of the Little Ice Age - temperatures were much lower than they were 400 years earlier, so that's a misstatement. In 1750, temperatures were not rising. The year 1750 was cherrypicked - try it with 1400 and see how it looks. The concept of "holding all that heat close to the planet" is simply nonsense - the atmosphere does not store heat. For most of the last 2 billion years, the earth's atmosphere has had more than 1,000 PPM CO2, so technically today we are close to CO2 starvation, which is why greenhouse owners pump CO2 in to around 1,000 PPM to make plants grow. He says "We're seeing an increase in the greenhouse effect," but CO2 is saturated now and has a vanishingly small greenhouse effect over 150 PPM. Methane, same thing. "More water vapor moves into the atmosphere, which causes the earth to get warmer." That statement is also wrong, it causes more clouds, which increase albedo. Many other mistakes here. Overall, a grade of C-.
Nothing you've said here is relevant. You're nitpicking. 1750 was picked to establish the environment before industrialization. You can pick any date along the timeline between Ice Age and present day and you will see an upward trend in temperature
This video does not properly describe how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere causes warming because there is no description of the ABSOLUTELY VITAL role of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate --------------------- - 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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.html at 7:50. - 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". The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") also 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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.html at 6:40. - Solids in the troposphere also 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 O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect as seen in the blue-hues pictorial upper-right on screen at the first 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.
In this video, I try to put the greenhouse effect into perspective, please add this to your learning from this video: ruclips.net/video/kMqnHypf5gI/видео.html
This comment is for ruclips.net/video/3ojaDMadZXU/видео.html This video does not properly describe how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere causes warming because there is no description of the ABSOLUTELY VITAL role of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate. For a so-called "greenhouse effect" in a planet's atmosphere to affect surface temperature it absolutely requires TWO THINGS and not just ONE THING. It absolutely requires: 1) The type of gases with the "springy" covalent bonds that have energies matching those of frequencies of transverse electromagnetic radiation which the surface emits (the GHG molecule's "absorption spectrum"), and 2) An atmosphere with a temperature lapse rate in which atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude. ----------- Here's why: LWR EMISSION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" emits depends on how often it collides because it can (and almost always does) obtain the harmonic motion in its "springy" covalent bonds by collision. So if it collides 3,000,000,000 times / second then obviously it'll get a "ringing" of its oscillating atomic nucleus (carbon for CO2) more often than if it collides 2,000,000,000 times / second (average for Earth's troposphere is 2,700,000,000 collisions / second for a molecule). Since the collision rate depends on temperature because the molecules are flying around faster (that's precisely what "temperature" & "heat" are in a gas, the average speed/weight of molecules, in a liquid or solid its "jostling" rather than "flying around") therefore at higher temperature there will be more LWR photons generated because more collisions. A scientists named "Max Plank" figured this out and other scientists developed the Stefan-Boltzmann equation PF = 5.6703 * (temp/100)**4 where "PF" is the power flux in w/m**2 for a bulk quantity of gas. Since temp decreases on average by 6.75 degrees for each 1 km increase in altitude therefore the power flux emitted by the GHGs decreases strongly (as the 4th power) as the altitude of the GHGs increases. ----------- LWR ABSORPTION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on how often it collides so the amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on the temperature of the parcel of atmosphere that it is in. ----------- The tiny portion of you who have functioning brains, as I do, will immediately realize that the combination of 1) LWR EMISSION strongly increases with air temperature (5.6703 * (temp/100)**4), and 2) LWR ABSORPTION doesn't depend in the slightest on air temperature, and 3) The temperature of Earth's troposphere decreases with altitude means that increased GHGs in Earth's troposphere (definitely not any higher though) MUST cause tropospheric warming because increased GHGs means the quantity is getting higher and that means cooler and, per above, that means less LWR emission per unit GHG quantity but no change in LWR absorption per unit GHG quantity, so exactly the same LWR as before from below gets absorbed but less LWR than before gets sent upwards (the direction in which some of it will get to space). Very simple little bit of basic physics. British 13 year old grammar school child level. ------ This is why there can be no so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's tropopause and the "greenhouse effect" works BACKWARDS in Earth's stratosphere (increased GHGs should cool the stratosphere as I've just explained, and they definitely are, it's being measured by satellite instrument). Since the video here doesn't describe the absolutely vital role that the tropospheric temperature lapse rate plays in the "greenhouse effect" therefore it is highly incorrect and can easily be debunked by any self-respecting coal/oil shill (though perhaps they don't exist) not at all because the "greenhouse effect" is invalid science but because THIS VIDEO ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE PHYSICS OF THE SO-CALLED "GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN EARTH'S TROPOSPHERE".
The image of the Earth shown within the first minute is upside down. Was this a political view, or does your graphic artist need a geography lesson? It also seems that some of your material is unfounded speculation and leans a little to a certain point of view. I'm a little mad that my school used this video as a reference.
But wait : If this affect gets to heating the planet up more and more over time, doesn't more heat mean more water evaporation from the oceans, rivers, lakes ect... ? Answer : YES Does that mean more & more water vapor entering into the air that will reach the higher altitudes ? Answer : YES Doesn't more & more water vapor reaching higher altitudes mean more & more clowd cover forming over the earth ? Answer : YES Doesn't more & more clowd covering the planet mean more & more cool rain drops falling back to earth ? Answer : YES Doesn't more & more cool rain drops absorb more & more c02 thus bringing more and more amounts of Co2 back out of the atmosphere to the earths surface/oceans ? Answer : YES At the same time, doesn't more and more clowd covering the earth bounce more and more heat from the sun back into space ? Answer : YES Doesn't more & more heat from the sun being bounced back into space mean that what you demonstrated in the video slows down & things start to cool off again ? Answer : Yes Doesn't this cooling affect cause the oceans to cool again ? Answer : YES Doesn't water cooling down more & and more mean that the water will retain more & more co2 Answer : YES ( cool water retains more co2 ) Does that mean there would have be a decrease of the co2 in the atmosphere & decrease of the suns heat being trapped in the earths atmosphere from more clowd cover thus causing a cooling period again ? ( like has happened many times through this earths history ) Answer : Yes Does that mean the ice caps and glaciers grow back again ? Answer : Yes Answer
The hypothesis in your Q&A with yourself did not take air pressure into account. Clouds would still concentrate in low pressure areas, creating lots of rainfall and thick clouds only over the low pressure regions. Clouds cannot spread evenly. They pile up in low pressure, and get whisked away in high pressure.
Guys a total sophist, the floor of a greenhouse is always the warmest surface, the top is the coldest layer. The warmer the air gets at the bottom the hotter the floor HAS to get to maintain a higher temperature differential with the air above it. To transfer its incoming energy via by conduction to. You only have to take a pane of glass out of the top and greenhouse doesn't work. If you took a pain out of the bottom row it wouldn't make much difference. If a greenhouse was heated in any way by trapped light [LWIR] it wouldn't make any difference to how a greenhouse performed with one pane missing. And if this guy doesn't have a clue about emissive effect then he is not worth a carrot. If he does not understand how basic 600 year old technology works he is not worth a carrot. He thinks air warms itself above a warmer surface than it, by trapping ILWIR photons a few nano seconds and he is not worth a carrot. How could anyone take the guy seriously when he gets the most basic of physics so wrong. And how does heat [photon energy] from an Atmosphere with an average temperature of -33c warm the earths surface more per square metre than 960w average 12hrs per day of direct sunlight causing temperature differentials between surface and atmosphere of between 0c and plus +80c from poles to tropics How does cold make hot hotter still. No emessivity in his greenhouse , no 2nd law of Thermo dynamics in his Atmosphere. Energy travels in all directions as photons Waves of light energy, but not all light or energy is equal. All photons are not equal, their electron voltage, is why photons from cold environs cannot increase energy state [temperature] in warmer environs. [2nd law] All photons emitted from the atmosphere are simply to weak to penetrate a surface molecules skin of orbiting higher frequency atoms with a far superior electron voltage and are repelled, i.e. deflected. Any returning spectre to the Earths surface is simply deflected to space in a nano-second Try it, put a candle on the table light it and turn the lights out, now put a pile of ice beside the candle,...... does the flame get brighter, or hotter, whats happening to the reflected light from the ice to candle ? whats happening to the emitted photons from the ice to the candle ? Its all getting deflected and thermal flow is one way candle to ice. Why would this sophist in his vid try and trick you, cultural Marxist politics that is why.
Lol he thinks infrared radiation is heat^^ Infrared radiation is produced BY heat. Note: All radiation can travel without a medium and trough a vacuum, heat can not. Thats why we put a vacuum into our windows.
Yes it was very helpful. Thank you. Maybe next you should do a video on Geothermal Energy and teach the rest of the idiots how to free themselves from Big Oil dependency and cool the planet at the same time.
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
pov: you watching this for school.
yes, sadly.
Lmaooo yess
I like to chew on iPhone batteries, also, yeah.
science class
Yo I don't mind this guy is cool
I've been watching your videos since middle school, and I'm currently in College right now, and I couldn't find any other youtube channel that helps me so much like yours. I wish you were my professor! Great content! Thank you so much!
I would strongly encourage Mr. Anderson to consider his usage of "radiation" and "heat" which are not the same (but can be converted from one to the other). I would encourage anyone watching this video to find videos about light absorption, the definition of heat and atomic spectra to get a more fundamental picture of what is happening.
Agreed. His random interchanging of "heat" and "IR" as if there was no difference made me a bit queasy. IR is only heat insofar as it is able to interact with molecules. The absorption of IR will increase the KE of absorbing molecules, which can be thought of as an increase in temperature, or "heat." We feel the warmth of IR because the atoms on the surface of our skin can absorb IR and increase their KE. It is the opposite with generating IR: any IR photon generated at the earth's surface results in a decrease in KE equal to the energy of the photon, and so as the earth emits IR, the result is a decrease in temperature. The IR photon itself is not heat; the heat we think of is only due to how IR interacts with atoms. Although CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb IR and thus increase their KE, this is only momentary since that IR is soon re-emitted, and so KE then decreases. The overall effect of IR absorption by greenhouse gases is NOT an increase in temperature, but rather a redistribution of IR either back to earth, where it is reabsorbed, or lost to space, where it adds to the total loss of energy by the earth. This is the tip of the iceberg for the mechanism of warming, none of which has been addressed here.
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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.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". 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") also 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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.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 also 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.
I always think of the matrix when you introduce yourself as "Mr. Anderson"
You and everyone else, part of the reason i come here is to leave a related comment or reply to one.
Congrats your part of my daily routine
But what is the nullspace of his videos haha?
same lol
Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect).
------
So suppose I calculate how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen:
- LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2
- LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2
There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation).
The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent).
The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent).
------
That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant).
-------------
So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.
There was no explanation of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Did I miss something. You were overly focused on albedo, but no explanation of how more greenhouse gases result in a warmer atmosphere. Also, there was no warming in 1750. That industrialization had negligible effect on greenhouse emissions. It was not until the latter half of the 19th century that industrialization grew to the point where emissions began affecting global temperature.
Are you saying that planets which do not have greenhouse gases will not have not have any temperature increase as you move towards the core. A gas planet like Jupiter has much higher temperature at its core than at the edge of the atmosphere. It does not have greenhouse gases. Also you do not explain how a surface at + 15c radiates the same energy into space as a surface at - 15c. Are you saying some of the energy never gets into Space, if so then surely the Earth would just keep getting hotter and hotter?
Why do the atmospheric molecules H2O, CO2, CH4 absorb infrared photons whereas N2 and O2 do not? I've heard it has something to do with the fact that H2O, CO2, CH4 are asymmetric molecules. But what exactly is the technical explanation of this?
I'm making a solar oven in school and was wandering how the heat stayed in the box and this helped.
during the dinosaur age, an age spanning more than 200 million years, the earth ranged from 1000-2000 ppm. Why didn't this cause an extreme earth burnup? I bet if you plugged in 2000 ppm into your program your computer would have exploded
"Why didn't this cause an extreme earth burnup?" The Sun's output was lower 200 million years ago, so 4.8 w/m**2 less for Earth which is the same effect as CO2 change from the present 425 to 935 so 935 ppmv CO2 then was the same as 425 ppmv now with the hotter Sun. The main reason by far though is that no scientist has stated that it'll "cause an extreme earth burnup" and that's just pathetic lazy C R A P that you made up.
Water vapour isn't really considered a green house gas because its concentration in the atmosphere is variable depending on air pressure and how much of it is evaporating/falling back down as rain or snow. Even if all the water in the world evaporated right now, it would all fall back down as rain because the atmosphere wouldn't be able to support its weight.
But water is the most abundant from all the gasses 4% (40 000 ppm) for CO2 is almost 400 ppm... Also, water has the highest latent heat, specific heat and absorption !
Hello fellow students
So the earth warms the atmosphere right?
Yes. Good observation.
I don’t understand how the atmosphere is cold yet that somehow heats the surface of the earth? The higher you get into the atmosphere the colder it gets, so how can heat “radiate” from something that is cold?
I guess all the infrared heat stays near the surfaca? ...but then why does soil convert light into infrared heat?
It's all not so easy. You see that. Malicious "smart deniers" make it their hobby to point to all those things they guess we probably won't understand well to make us stumble. It's better to just give them a good link..
The way I understand it as layman for now: , the addition of CO2 means the whole column with CO2 in it expands higher and so the altitude at which the radiating upward = cooling effect of CO2 starts to dominate is higher too and it's colder there so the molecules radiate less infrared there then they previously (no humans, no extra CO2 added) did.
That trapping effect near the surface alone is not sufficient to explain fully. There is also less IR radiating away to space. So there is more downward component and less upward component.
GHG don't heat up but only slow down heat loss. The troposphere warms but the stratosphere cools down with GHG. It's in some way like a person using a blanket. He will be warmer but the other side of the room a little colder. The total energy in the room stays the same. There is no magical gain of energy.. skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
An agricultural greenhouse works mainly by suppressing convection.
YES! Any reflection (not refraction!!!) of IR from glass is negligible compared to the glass preventing convection away from the greenhouse in terms of heating.
I might just sue my teacher for torturing my classmates by doing long 56 pages of slides on one video
@wasabii // you spelled boner wrong
you have saved my life a Countless number of times.
Can i ask for something?
If all gases behave that same...why there is greenhouse effect for chosen ones?
Every gas should follow ONE law.
Why do you think all gases behave the same ?
@@EvilMaxWar
Because when you do work on gas, every one will heat when you press them. Gravity is doing that to the atmosphere.
PV=nRT
Plus R is the ideal gas constant. It is the same for all gases. It can also be derived from the microscopic kinetic theory, as was achieved (apparently independently) by August Krönig in 1856 and Rudolf Clausius in 1857.
@@deadendjesenice
But they behave that same!
A 6 different gas laws unite in PV=nRT!
Work for 6 planets and one moon. Math agree with measurment. (the most for Venus)
@@deadendjesenice
Molecules...noble gases aren't! And Gas law WORK even on them! See:
ruclips.net/video/BuTmHCRJovc/видео.html
Gas giants...thermal gradiance:
ruclips.net/video/1Y_n283fYbc/видео.html
and discusion about ideal gas law and greenhouse gas theory:
Venus:
ruclips.net/video/1Y_n283fYbc/видео.html
Earth:
ruclips.net/video/V0jdPQ9aGbY/видео.html
thank you for this!
Thank you soooo much for posting your videos. It has done wonders in helping me understand science!!!! Thanks again!
Thanks a lot.You helped me understand something my teacher couldn't explain.
Maybe because this theory doesnt work in reality. Heat is not a radiation. It needs a medium to travel. And IR radiation is produced BY heat and cant turn into heat again.
I think your teacher was a real scientist (following the scientific principles) and thats why he could not make sense of it.
But there is no balance using the greenhouse effect if I have a greenhouse and put tomatoes in there we're just a mist of water 2 minutes a day what would happen to my tomatoes they will burn up
How can we move forward when are leaders don't seem to understand the immensity of the problem.
we kill ourselves then CRISIS AVERTED!
5:18 If CO2 is trapped in the ice record, and by its nature - specially - traps heat, why doesn't it account for avalanche and snow pack instability? It is in the snowpack - at around a factor of 10 times more than the atmosphere, but no mention of it in literature or practice. If it did we'd know and we would measure monitor it. Or is it that it does cause avalanches, and I have made a great discovery. All avalanches are caused by the CO2 trapping/ changing heat in the snowpack.
It does not "trap" heat. It absorbs infrared radiation - just to re-emit it immediately into a random direction. Nothing to do with snow pack and avalanches.
thank u very much, sir. it helped me to do a great project
The sophist simulation was done with solar infrared, the bright red bands,............. if it was an honest simulation he would have used the 15 micron lenght only,.......
Then ofcourse he would have been faced with cold warming hot.
Needed this for may science assignment, verge accurate information and helpful thanks...
Good job man, you are really helpful and you make it all so clear! I appreciate the help and keep up the good vids
Why are we not using carbon dioxide as insulation material in windows?
This video is very informative. It gave me chills watching it it was so amazing.
An actual greenhouse works due to the lack of convection with outter cold air... not due to radiative reflection
CO2 is heavier then air, all green cells require it all day long in a process called photosynthesis. It is the greatest balance of life.
Great video
how did atmosphere got to existence then?
Classroom Demonstrations of the
Greenhouse Effect (short videos)-
#1 “Greenhouse in a Beaker”
ruclips.net/video/UJp4-qCiPHU/видео.html
#2 “Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2”
ruclips.net/video/Ot5n9m4whaw/видео.html
[Note: The above video about infrared absorption is, also, imbedded in the following excellent video about water vapor as a greenhouse gas (at the 4 minute mark):
#3 ruclips.net/video/jdhnhknaJOg/видео.html
Awesome demonstration. You explained it very clearly and interestingly :) Love u.
You should have pointed out that the incoming solar energy is running at a much higher frequency than the outbound, so it interacts differentially with atmospheric gasses.
Why does that happen? Does the earth's surface emit a different frequency distribution compared to the incoming?
So Awesome, love this topic!!! Great explanation.
You are assuming that the greenhouse gases are causing the heat, instead of the heat causing the increase in greenhouse gases. As you admit, you have no present way to measure the past water vapor, so you can't write off the importance of it's ability to bond with particles from outer space. The sun is not static, not only does it give us heat, it also effects the Earth's magnetic field, which effects the amount of particles that can enter the earth's atmosphere.
Help
Hi, thank you for creating and uploading these videos, Andersen-Senpai!
:)
Thanks for the video. You are wrong about one thing, though. Ice cores do not represent a summer/winter cycle. They represent warm/cold cycles, which in some cases are as short as day/night, and sometimes longer, depending on when snow falls, how much the temperature rises during the day (which depends on the season), and how cold it gets at night, etc. For a layer to form, you need snow to fall, the warm a little so it starts to melt and packs together, which then freezes again at night. If more snow falls the next day, it could add to the layer or begin a whole new layer. Seasons with a lot of snowfall could see many layers form. We know this is true because airplanes that crash landed on the ice in Greenland in the 2nd World War (fewer than 80 years ago) were found buried not under 80 layers, but under 250-300 feet (75-90 meters) of ice layers. They did not sink into already existing layers, but were actually buried one layer at a time. The number of layers was consistent with what I stated above, but inconsistent with the uniformitarian concept that each layer represents an entire year or even season.
Disappointing. No explanation as to how the O2 and N2 molecules (the vast majority of the atmosphere) get heated by photons.......probably because they don't ditectly. If the excited CO2 collides with N2 or O2 molecules (a very likely event) the CO2 loses energy as heat to the N2 or O2 and then cannot emit a photon . Nor the fact that the majority of IR photons do NOT energise CO2 molecules either...... gases are not "black bodies" and the line spectra they absorb or emit come from a low % of all the all IR emitted from the earth's surface. Also, CO2 lasers work by having N2 molecules energised, and these then collide with CO2 molecules, excite some of them and then aa good number of the excited CO2 emits photons corresponding to the allowed frequencies (before losing energy as heat). The atmosphere has heaps of Nitrogen molecules and some of these have enough energy to excite the CO2 and trigger an emitted photon. As we get higher in the atmosphere, the rarified gases make collisions less frequent so less heating goes on and more of the excited CO2 emit a photon. CO2 lasers tht emit the wavelengths the fit within the normal range of IR photons emitted by the Earth can be used as range finders that can measure 20km. So CO2 emitted IR photons are known to travel a long way through Earth's atmosphere without being absorbed and causing any "greenhouse effect" as described in this video. The lower atmosphere heating is a measure of collisions between molecules, a very low % of which get energised by photons of the correct frequeny ,and which lose this acquired energy in collisions before emitting a photon themselves. These lower atmosphere CO2 also capture IR photons emitted down from higher in the atmosphere and turn it to heat rather than re-emitting down to Earth. Thus these photons annot directly heat the eath's surface.
Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect).
------
So suppose I calculate how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen:
- LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2
- LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2
There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation).
The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent).
The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent).
------
That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant).
-------------
So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.
Yes it was great information and I need to have more help for this class in science class.
Are you saying that in the desert (where there is no water vapor because it's dry) at night time when it colds down that it's getting warmer at night? The green house gas is H2O and the humidity levels very. Are you prepared to shut down the economy with Carbon Taxes and force people to give up their lively hood that they rely on to live just to keep the CO2 levels down? Do you want to risk more nuclear melt downs by going to nuclear?
I believe he is speaking of the atmosphere of earth on average rather than a regions particular climate. The green house effect to me although theoretically possible has quite a lot of gaps in prediction and politically is being co-oped as a means to establish a dominance on the market because of cap and trade. Do not give up on Nuclear energy however as I feel progress could still be made.
JadeXTopaz
Don't give up on nuclear energy because you FEEL progress can still be made? I can't to fucking tell you but that is offensive. To many children are dying of cancer and how many more nuclear meltdowns are we going to have? We had at least 5 of them. It's hard to know because they don't tell people when something goes wrong at the plant! Most of the energy we get are from Coal. CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis. Ash is carbon based and that is used for fertilizer. you can't get more green than burning carbon! Humans irrigate water to desert climates. Landscaping the desert which us humans do means more of the planets surface is green! In nuclear power they still burn fossil fuels in every step of the way from mining to transportation of nuclear waste! Fuck you for supporting something that kills children!
*****
It is true that alternate energy systems are under way. And they will REPLACE the dirty burning to get energy. The most promising is the geothermal energy plants. We still need energy from burning and we are NOT going to shut down the energy we are using right now. We are not going to burn the bridge we are walking on. Just let the free market work and everything will work out.
This guy just describes how the greenhouse effect works. He does not make any suggestion how to deal with global warming.
In the back of my head at the start of the video I heard Agent Smith (Matrix) saying "MISTER ANDERSON".
That explanation was ammmaazzinggg
Good video….. thanks
Hello Professor, would you or any of your expert friend's like to review my two complementary papers on quantum mechanics and the atmosphere? 'Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory' and 'The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers'. I have shown N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR photons, can prove it by experiment (Frank-Hertz experiment and other) and that the so-called GHGs are really only the thermoelectric gases - they also emit and absorb IR photons but are not special other than they are received by thermoelectric transducers - thermopiles originally. I have uncovered a lot of other misconceptions relevant to radiation theory. No one seems to like what I have uncovered, and I mean no one (climate sceptics that is); but equally, no one, no expert, has told me directly where I have am wrong. Please, direct comments to the preprint paper. Thank you in advance. www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory www.researchgate.net/publication/329311153_The_Greenhouse_Gases_and_Infrared_Radiation_Misconceived_by_Thermoelectric_Transducers
Because you're a crackpot so no one is going to pay attention to you. Search youtube for 'perpetual energy'. There are tons of people who are like you and JUST WISHED real scientists would listen to them. I once asked a professor if I could do a project debunking you nutjobs but he wouldnt let me "You shouldn't pay attention to crackpots" he told me. There entire subcategory at APS for all the Nuts who want to present, but they have NEVER produced anything of substance or groundbreaking. Yes we know you think it's all the tens of thousands of smart scientists that are wrong, but you should have some humility in your own ability to be wrong. Einsten convinced people of GR, Feynman convinced people of QED because the science is solid. Yours is not, which is why you can't even make it through peer review, let alone change a field. I for one would never have the arrogance you do. I have NEVER believed my own conviction over hundreds of experts I couldn't convince. You may be right, but in the history of science we'll be able to count on one hand the number of times a no-name completely upended a field. I'd be willing to give you 100-to-1 on bitcoin you wont be one of them. I know you won't believe any of this. YOu'll point me to your paper and say "hey look at this arcane plot I produced that proves them wrong". I wont do that. How about yYOU TRY THIS: and get some sit-down time with 10 radiation physicists (you'll probably have to drive between states because--as someone who was in academia--we would get emails from you nuts ALL THE TIME.) Present your case, and drill really deep to the MOST FUNDAMENTAL disagreement. There will be at least one. The experts will say that your absorption spectrum is wrong or your understanding of quantum mechanics is wrong at some FUNDAMENTAL point. Write down their logic and yours (you NEED to write it out so you can follow it). Then go and find 20 other experts that will deign to speak with you and ONLY ASK THEM ABOUT THIS **ONE** issue of contention. It will be something so fundamental that there is little room for interpretation. If all 20 people tell you you are wrong, then although neither us nor you can ULTIMATELY REALLY know who is right, at least you can die knowing that you as a less-experienced, independent researcher trusted yourself over 20-30 experts that said you were wrong on one of the most fundamental points of science which was never the genesis of paradigm shifts in science--it's just not how progress is made in science.
THANKYOU
Sounds plausible, but is complete sophistry. These is no radiative greenhouse effect and CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere. The atmosphere helps to keep the earth warmer. But that is called insulation. And it is controlled by heat capacity, convection and latent heat exchange bywayof the water cycle. Your explanation is gibberish.
You're explanation about how the keeps warm temps doesn't make sense. Heat capacity or latent heat exchange has nothing to do with keeping heat in the atmosphere. Convection is a weather related process. If you can't understand the greenhouse effect, watch this video (ruclips.net/video/sTvqIijqvTg/видео.html )
Awesome
That should read: This should be required viewing for everyone. Sorry for the typos.
That was very helpful!
Some of this is right, most of it is wrong. 1750 was toward the end of the Little Ice Age - temperatures were much lower than they were 400 years earlier, so that's a misstatement. In 1750, temperatures were not rising. The year 1750 was cherrypicked - try it with 1400 and see how it looks. The concept of "holding all that heat close to the planet" is simply nonsense - the atmosphere does not store heat. For most of the last 2 billion years, the earth's atmosphere has had more than 1,000 PPM CO2, so technically today we are close to CO2 starvation, which is why greenhouse owners pump CO2 in to around 1,000 PPM to make plants grow. He says "We're seeing an increase in the greenhouse effect," but CO2 is saturated now and has a vanishingly small greenhouse effect over 150 PPM. Methane, same thing. "More water vapor moves into the atmosphere, which causes the earth to get warmer." That statement is also wrong, it causes more clouds, which increase albedo. Many other mistakes here. Overall, a grade of C-.
Nothing you've said here is relevant. You're nitpicking. 1750 was picked to establish the environment before industrialization. You can pick any date along the timeline between Ice Age and present day and you will see an upward trend in temperature
celcius pls
This is more than helpful. Love these videos
you the homie, woulda failed
Thanks for this great vid. ..
You made the greenhouse effect really easy to understand! thanks.
Great explanation.
*_Walmart John Green_*
this is awesome. thanks.
Did Sputnik break any glass, or any other rockets? I don't think we live in a greenhouse?
I need to watch this for my homework
did anyone realize he spelled "green" wrong. Ameture😜
CORN ON THE COBB
This video does not properly describe how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere causes warming because there is no description of the ABSOLUTELY VITAL role of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate
---------------------
- 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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.html at 7:50.
- 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". The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain.
---------
- Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") also 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 ruclips.net/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/видео.html at 6:40.
- Solids in the troposphere also 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 O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere).
---------
- The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect as seen in the blue-hues pictorial upper-right on screen at the first 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.
Sophomore chemistry 🧪
you are a beautiful soul
im not so sure but ok
Thanks for teaching~
No problem!
@@Frank-fl8gw lol
Nice!
for school :/
In this video, I try to put the greenhouse effect into perspective, please add this to your learning from this video: ruclips.net/video/kMqnHypf5gI/видео.html
Activity of man adds to the water vapor; irrigation, deforestation and combustion releases a lot of that greenhouse gas.
This comment is for ruclips.net/video/3ojaDMadZXU/видео.html
This video does not properly describe how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere causes warming because there is no description of the ABSOLUTELY VITAL role of the tropospheric temperature lapse rate. For a so-called "greenhouse effect" in a planet's atmosphere to affect surface temperature it absolutely requires TWO THINGS and not just ONE THING. It absolutely requires:
1) The type of gases with the "springy" covalent bonds that have energies matching those of frequencies of transverse electromagnetic radiation which the surface emits (the GHG molecule's "absorption spectrum"), and
2) An atmosphere with a temperature lapse rate in which atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude.
-----------
Here's why:
LWR EMISSION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" emits depends on how often it collides because it can (and almost always does) obtain the harmonic motion in its "springy" covalent bonds by collision. So if it collides 3,000,000,000 times / second then obviously it'll get a "ringing" of its oscillating atomic nucleus (carbon for CO2) more often than if it collides 2,000,000,000 times / second (average for Earth's troposphere is 2,700,000,000 collisions / second for a molecule). Since the collision rate depends on temperature because the molecules are flying around faster (that's precisely what "temperature" & "heat" are in a gas, the average speed/weight of molecules, in a liquid or solid its "jostling" rather than "flying around") therefore at higher temperature there will be more LWR photons generated because more collisions. A scientists named "Max Plank" figured this out and other scientists developed the Stefan-Boltzmann equation PF = 5.6703 * (temp/100)**4 where "PF" is the power flux in w/m**2 for a bulk quantity of gas. Since temp decreases on average by 6.75 degrees for each 1 km increase in altitude therefore the power flux emitted by the GHGs decreases strongly (as the 4th power) as the altitude of the GHGs increases.
-----------
LWR ABSORPTION: The amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on how often it collides so the amount of long-wave radiation (LWR) that a "greenhouse gas (GHG)" absorbs DOES NOT DEPEND IN THE SLIGHTEST on the temperature of the parcel of atmosphere that it is in.
-----------
The tiny portion of you who have functioning brains, as I do, will immediately realize that the combination of
1) LWR EMISSION strongly increases with air temperature (5.6703 * (temp/100)**4), and
2) LWR ABSORPTION doesn't depend in the slightest on air temperature, and
3) The temperature of Earth's troposphere decreases with altitude
means that increased GHGs in Earth's troposphere (definitely not any higher though) MUST cause tropospheric warming because increased GHGs means the quantity is getting higher and that means cooler and, per above, that means less LWR emission per unit GHG quantity but no change in LWR absorption per unit GHG quantity, so exactly the same LWR as before from below gets absorbed but less LWR than before gets sent upwards (the direction in which some of it will get to space). Very simple little bit of basic physics. British 13 year old grammar school child level.
------
This is why there can be no so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's tropopause and the "greenhouse effect" works BACKWARDS in Earth's stratosphere (increased GHGs should cool the stratosphere as I've just explained, and they definitely are, it's being measured by satellite instrument). Since the video here doesn't describe the absolutely vital role that the tropospheric temperature lapse rate plays in the "greenhouse effect" therefore it is highly incorrect and can easily be debunked by any self-respecting coal/oil shill (though perhaps they don't exist) not at all because the "greenhouse effect" is invalid science but because THIS VIDEO ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE PHYSICS OF THE SO-CALLED "GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN EARTH'S TROPOSPHERE".
so-called observed reality?
All apes students rn
The image of the Earth shown within the first minute is upside down. Was this a political view, or does your graphic artist need a geography lesson? It also seems that some of your material is unfounded speculation and leans a little to a certain point of view. I'm a little mad that my school used this video as a reference.
yuh yuh yuh
OK BOOMER
yes
wassup k12 peeps
Where is the proof that a warmer planet is more dangerous?
Ice melts, sea levels rise, cyclones gets more intense, rainfall patterns change, migratory behavior is impacted, agriculture gets impacted, migrant crises continue, ...... There is proof everywhere.
But wait :
If this affect gets to heating the planet up more and more over time, doesn't more heat mean more water evaporation from the oceans, rivers, lakes ect... ?
Answer : YES
Does that mean more & more water vapor entering into the air that will reach the higher altitudes ?
Answer : YES
Doesn't more & more water vapor reaching higher altitudes mean more & more clowd cover forming over the earth ?
Answer : YES
Doesn't more & more clowd covering the planet mean more & more cool rain drops falling back to earth ?
Answer : YES
Doesn't more & more cool rain drops absorb more & more c02 thus bringing more and more amounts of Co2 back out of the atmosphere to the earths surface/oceans ?
Answer : YES
At the same time, doesn't more and more clowd covering the earth bounce more and more heat from the sun back into space ?
Answer : YES
Doesn't more & more heat from the sun being bounced back into space mean that what you demonstrated in the video slows down & things start to cool off again ?
Answer : Yes
Doesn't this cooling affect cause the oceans to cool again ?
Answer : YES
Doesn't water cooling down more & and more mean that the water will retain more & more co2
Answer : YES ( cool water retains more co2 )
Does that mean there would have be a decrease of the co2 in the atmosphere & decrease of the suns heat being trapped in the earths atmosphere from more clowd cover thus causing a cooling period again ? ( like has happened many times through this earths history )
Answer : Yes
Does that mean the ice caps and glaciers grow back again ?
Answer : Yes
Answer
The hypothesis in your Q&A with yourself did not take air pressure into account. Clouds would still concentrate in low pressure areas, creating lots of rainfall and thick clouds only over the low pressure regions. Clouds cannot spread evenly. They pile up in low pressure, and get whisked away in high pressure.
Was that helpful ? No - way too simplistic to allow any conclusion about "global warming" caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.
merci bcp.. c'est très informatif et j'ai cherché des idées de changement climatique
speak english french is gay
Thisnshoukd be required viewing for everyone.
r/ihadastroke
@@carterbracht3988 // they aren't English fluent
4:28
are you single
Guys a total sophist, the floor of a greenhouse is always the warmest surface, the top is the coldest layer.
The warmer the air gets at the bottom the hotter the floor HAS to get to maintain a higher temperature differential with the air above it.
To transfer its incoming energy via by conduction to.
You only have to take a pane of glass out of the top and greenhouse doesn't work.
If you took a pain out of the bottom row it wouldn't make much difference.
If a greenhouse was heated in any way by trapped light [LWIR] it wouldn't make any difference to how a greenhouse performed with one pane missing.
And if this guy doesn't have a clue about emissive effect then he is not worth a carrot.
If he does not understand how basic 600 year old technology works he is not worth a carrot.
He thinks air warms itself above a warmer surface than it, by trapping ILWIR photons a few nano seconds and he is not worth a carrot.
How could anyone take the guy seriously when he gets the most basic of physics so wrong.
And how does heat [photon energy] from an Atmosphere with an average temperature of -33c warm the earths surface more per square metre than 960w average 12hrs per day of direct sunlight causing temperature differentials between surface and atmosphere of between 0c and plus +80c from poles to tropics
How does cold make hot hotter still.
No emessivity in his greenhouse , no 2nd law of Thermo dynamics in his Atmosphere.
Energy travels in all directions as photons
Waves of light energy, but not all light or energy is equal.
All photons are not equal, their electron voltage, is why photons from cold environs cannot increase energy state [temperature] in warmer environs. [2nd law]
All photons emitted from the atmosphere are simply to weak to penetrate a surface molecules skin of orbiting higher frequency atoms with a far superior electron voltage and are repelled, i.e. deflected.
Any returning spectre to the Earths surface is simply deflected to space in a nano-second
Try it, put a candle on the table light it and turn the lights out, now put a pile of ice beside the candle,...... does the flame get brighter, or hotter, whats happening to the reflected light from the ice to candle ? whats happening to the emitted photons from the ice to the candle ?
Its all getting deflected and thermal flow is one way candle to ice.
Why would this sophist in his vid try and trick you, cultural Marxist politics that is why.
This is all gibberish.
bro u made 0 sense. Care to explain your reasoning in a way that follows the basic rules of science>?
Aye yo thanks!
this sucks
no one can change my mind.
@@carterbracht3988 It appears that Igor has already done that for you. He has accidentally grabbed Abbey Something ...... Abbey Normal
fortnite dababy saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Worst light weight misleading nonsense.
Lol he thinks infrared radiation is heat^^
Infrared radiation is produced BY heat.
Note: All radiation can travel without a medium and trough a vacuum, heat can not. Thats why we put a vacuum into our windows.
Some people will reject science, evidence, even logic, to hang on to their beliefs. Religious and political faith bases thinking is so wrong.
Thanks,
Yes it was very helpful. Thank you.
Maybe next you should do a video on Geothermal Energy and teach the rest of the idiots how to free themselves from Big Oil dependency and cool the planet at the same time.
Cars, aeroplanes, ships, ...... do they use oil or geothermal?