If you found this interesting and would like to learn more about the role water vapour specifically plays in Earth's climate, check out this video I made with Dr Adam Levy! ruclips.net/video/F4XZUSiTFio/видео.html
I'm gonna be honest, I am extremely angered with the first minute of this video, to the point that I had to stop it and write this down. Your starting argument about tons of CO2 on venus translating into temperature is... absolutely alien to me. It's like if you took premise that eating a lot makes person fatter over duration of a month, and then started pondering why, if you attach a special machine to a person, machine that forcefeeds them one ton of food every day, you don't get to have 30 ton human at the end of the month, but instead a 30 day old corpse and a large pile of rotten food. I mean why the hell would you ever assume that adding CO2 to atmosphere would lead to linear increase of temperature for so damn long? Are you from another universe where everything is linear and where geometric progression doesn't exist? Do you think that if a small candle produces 700°C flame, a candle of 1000 times greate volume will produce 700k C° flame? I just... don't have words. I know, this is just usual clickbaiting stuff, something I'm used to, and I should be completely calm, but for some reason this specific case just brings my anger to eleven. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could ever say that. I think a quarter of my brain just died from hearing that equation... Simon... Just why? Edit: Thankfully, after that awful first minute, rest of the video was done reasonably well.
You are a purveyor of fake science. Earth's climate is governed by the internal heat of this planet and neither We, Co2, water vapour nor solar radiation have anything whatsoever to do with climate. The GHE is an anti-science scam perpetrated by the climate science conmen and frauds.
@@minecraftstation6422 Yes, it doesn’t feel too hard of a concept once you walk through all of it, but doing it the first time takes some effort with all the physics and math behind it!
@@griegosta7159 I meant not to the youtuber but to normal people like me who know nearly nothing in this field so this video was nice to introduce me to new things that are a bit more than scratching the surface
well if you were to teleport on Venus you would probably die almost in an instant because of the immense pressure. So I guess the heat is only a secondary problem on Venus at this high pressure level. But check out kurzgesagt's video on terraforming Venus if you wanna know how to change that (spoiler alert: It's really difficult and would take several thousand years, so no problem at all..)
SIMOOOOON! EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOUNG MAN! WHY ARE YOU MEME SHIT POSTING IN YOUR SCIENCE VIDEOS? Young man, in a world where everything is made out of balloons, you are the one boy who brought a pin to school. You've let me down, let yourself down, you've let your school down, you've let your family down... FAMILY!?!? ASDFGHGAGDH
relatively spoken venus really is cold. When you bake something in your oven for an hour at 200°C but in the end the thing you baked only has 80°C its relatively spoken cold allthough 80°C is hot enough to burn your hands.
@@emperoroftheuniverse5950 we can't see from here but due to Venus lack of magnetic field, there is virtually zero convection in the core, and you are looking at millions of years for the crust to cool down enough
"You'd last longer on Mars without a spacesuit than on Venus *with* a spacesuit." That really puts the Venusian surface's inhospitableness in perspective.
I only wish RUclipsrs stopped showing cooling towers in a context of CO2 emissions. I know it's a pretty picture, but you are not helping with the problem of scaremongering people against nuclear plants. Just show a god damn coal plant or some oil processing plant. The only thing cooling towers use is air and water, and "emit" water vapor. Other than that, nice video 👍
@@Tourmaliminal But the gas coming out of the tower isn't some poisonous radiation fume, it's literally just water, and this type of cooling tower is very associated with nuclear power
If you think cooling towers are exclusively found in nuclear plants, you're not as smart as you think you are and you shouldn't be making a comment like this. Maybe stick to topics that you actually know something about.
I disagree. Celsius and Kelvin are great scientific scales based around absolute zero and the freezing and boiling points of water. Fahrenheit is a good “human scale” temperature system based around the extremes that humans encounter in the Earth’s environment. All the scales have their uses. Snobbery around temperature scales is ridiculous.
@@7eardstapa7 well in the Midwest it definetly gets much colder than 0 F, and in the south and southwest it can get hotter than 100 F, so that isn't really true
Fully endorse the “ridiculous” on the planet for Fahrenheit my dear Simon :D My favorite way of referring to it is the “rectum derived scale”, as Fahrenheit literally used the temperature of inside of his cows as a reference! (And there was some debate on whether those original cows had a fever…)
I think the metric system is far superior for many things but Fahrenheit just makes sense if you think of it this way......0 degrees = very cold...........100 degrees = very hot. For most places, or cities, on Earth, we rarely experience temperatures outside that range, so to me anyways, it makes sense.
@@saganworshipper6062 in the whole rest of the world no one ever go confused with Celsius. 35 degrees is hot for the rest of us and that's fine. Yet the conversion of units when working internationally or keeping the scientific unit different from the everyday scale does have costs.
@@SamirWise Well maybe you're just a hater. Regardless, it doesn't look like it's going away any time soon in America, so as long as you're not in America I guess it doesn't matter. But if you do happen to find yourself somewhere that only has F readings, now you have my handy guide to help you. 0=COLD (BRRRR) 100=HOT (SWEATY) simple. Have a great day!
Despite being an American, I totally agree with the fact that we're ridiculous. Metric is actually based on useful stuff, why the hell do we use Imperial?
No one wants to change. And for most people wether they use imperial or metric doesn't really matter. Since they are not doing calculations with it. They are using it to know how much of something they are using or purchasing on day to day items. Which could be based on anything as long as it is easy to use. Everyone that needs to do calculations in the US just use metric. But wether you get a one lb of bologna versus half a kilo of bologna at the grocery is not really a huge difference to put the effort to change.
@@shy8054 yeah I know. The people who need to use metric do use it, while others mostly don't care. Still, I will always standby the opinion that metric is superior, even though I doubt it will change soon (if ever)
Except, of course, it usually isn't They use an expression on Wall Street that's useful here: "trees don't grow to the sky" with the implication that, ultimately, negative feedbacks prevail over the positive feedback loops climate science struggles to model as it is. That's not so say we should ignore the duration or intensity of the positive feedback stage as we move off of a pre-existing equilibrium, just that complex systems like the climate are devilishly hard to model with anything approaching certainty.
I really like how you structured this video, i thought i was disagreeing with you during the first half, which was an interesting twist when i realized i wasn't. My first video that I've seen from you so you got yourself a new sub :)
Great video! How do you make all your animations? As an online Physics Professor I am always looking to improve what I use to demonstrate physics to my students. Any chance you wanna drop by on our zoom:)?
In what way? Also are you talking about the government, the people, or the culture? Which coast? (Each coast has different governments, different people, and a different culture) If it's the government you're mocking then I'm with you. The government is ENTIRELY ridiculous. It's built on "freedom" while taking away as much REAL freedom as possible.
Yeah, I discovered this when I wrote a report about the evolution of Venus' atmosphere. I didn't understand the most of the temperature on the surface was primarily due to the high pressure and not so much the CO2.
The idea that most of the temperature on the surface of Venus is primarily due to high pressure is highly misleading (and is is standard assertion of climate science deniers). If Venus had the same atmospheric pressure with an atmosphere made of nitrogen or argon (without any greenhouse gases), then the surface would be hundreds of degrees colder than it is. There are ways of thinking about the surface temperature of Venus that involve pressure, but those dynamics only function as they do because of the presence of greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide); they don’t produce warming in the absence of those gases. So, it’s misleading to think of those mechanisms as primary. / For a debunking of a paper that claims “planetary temperatures are all about pressure” you might look at www.quora.com/Did-Nikolov-and-Zeller-prove-that-atmospheres-warm-planets-only-through-pressure-and-not-as-a-result-of-greenhouse-gases/answer/Bob-Wentworth?ch=99&share=7b4b8dae&srid=nCNt / I don’t know what arguments or sources you referenced in your report. Given more information, I could possibly put the argument you found into more context.
It's the CO2, not the pressure. Like, for example, there is so much CO2 that the pressure comes from the CO2, like how the temperature comes from the CO2. The CO2 comes from the volcanoes.
Here is a paper explaining a very compelling theory of the warming mechanism that operates on planets that have an atmosphere. It not only explains the reason for the surface temperatures but also why the core is so hot as well. Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures Douglas J Cotton, B.Sc.(Physics), B.A., Dip.Bus.Admin
This was really cool! I take IB SL Physics (similar to AS Physics) and I loved how you used some of the concepts we've learnt (i.e. the inverse square law)- it's really nice to stretch my understanding of how these concepts can be applied!
you could write a sci-fi novel where a superior race is so corrupt and morally decrepit that it decides to start a science project to heat up another planet that's already inhabited by other sentient creatures just to see what's gonna happen.
You miss a few points. Pressure (atmospheric density) is also important! Positive feedbacks are scientific unproven, only used in modeling to rule out any natural variations (which exist!).
I'm struggling to figure out why RUclips is showing me the link to climate change on Earth over this video about Venus. I get that they're trying to fact check, but seriously, this is an entirely different planet.
Daniel Gale has it right, it's RUclips policy to put a link to credible information on climate change under every video that mentions it. It's their way of combating disinformation; in case the video says something incorrect, the viewer can just click the link and fact check it themselves. They do the same with COVID. Since this video ties the temperature of Venus in to global warming on Earth, it qualifies for the climate change link.
@@lorenzoblum868 Far from it! The world would definitely be a better place if the resources spent on the military was used on other things, but most of the ecological destruction is caused by civilian activities.
I've always disliked the phrasing of "warm air holding more water", the air itself has practically nothing to do with absolute humidity. I think we should make a collective effort to just talk about it in terms of water's vapour pressure.
I don't quite understand what you're saying but it also proves a point that "warm air holds more water" is just easier to get the idea across (unless it's wrong, then i would ask you what's wrong with the statement)
@@davidtitanium22 it's not an easier idea to get across, it's just a misconception. Saying warm water gives off more water vapour is just as simple, I think. And remember, the air is almost completely irrelevant - the amount of water vapour would be the same if there was absolutely no air.
@@davidtitanium22 Namerson is correct, but he is being purposefully vague. The principle of of water vaporising is wholly temperature based, and only related to air temperature in that air temperature is a prime cause for water becoming warmer. The Wikipedia page on evaporation is helpful "When a molecule near the surface absorbs enough energy to overcome the vapor pressure, it will escape and enter the surrounding air as a gas." The presence of other gasses (ie atmosphere) is not needed for evaporation.
The amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere is affected by how the vapor is removed from the atmosphere. The vapor tends to climb up (sometimes later, but it will...) and turn into a cloud. The cloud is no more vapor and its greenhouse effect is different from vapor's. The weather system can remove huge amounts of vapor by changing it into a cloud and raining it down. This way the weather system beats the climate system. Climbing vapor makes a strong latent convection passing all greenhouse filters.
you mentioned more co2 = warmer air = more clouds( water vapor). have you taken the increased cloud formation into account (blocking sunlight) or is this effect neglectable?
This is a great point! Yes cloud formation is taken into account when discussing climate sensitivity, in fact it's one of the biggest uncertainties - will the negative feedback of increasing albedo outweigh the increased water vapour in the air? In fact, I actually did a whole video with Dr Adam Levy on this: ruclips.net/video/F4XZUSiTFio/видео.html
@@KarryKarryKarry Yeah, a bit more complicated than that. If the types of cloud formed and the size of the clouds generated are consistent to today’s. If cloud formation processes are linear with increased temp. Etc. As Simon says in the video this is the largest uncertainty in climate sensitivity calculation. But we need to be thinking worst case rather than hoping for best case. We only have the one planet. We don’t want to conduct another runaway CO2 experiment in the solar system.
@@byrnemeister2008 We need to be thinking that gravity is a potential driver of climate change & Webb could indeed turn everything we know on it's head in less than a year away.
I guess we can conclude that the climate impact of CO₂ isn't linear, but it isn't logarithmic either when considering a range spanning several orders of magnitude rather than just a few doublings.
My first thought: Venus is a Queen and she is just herself. She just is who she is and doesn’t give a care. Then I realised you meant the planet. I then realised I’ve been watching too much much drag race.
_"Doubling CO2 will raise temperatures by 1.5-4.5C."_ Which would still put us well below Earth's normal temperatures and CO2 levels. Also, the history of Earth's CO2 levels vs its temperatures indicate that the two aren't as strongly correlated as many scientists theorize and our models aren't much better than our models about water vapor. You also forgot to mention that while water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, in the form of clouds, water vapor actually cools the planet dramatically, reflecting almost all light that hits it back into space. The more clouds you have, the cooler the planet will be, though more water vapor doesn't necessarily = more clouds.
You say that Earth is so far down the curve from Venus that putting more CO2 into out atmosphere now is about the same as putting in the first bit. That doesn't sound right. Earth's CO2 sensitivity is currently logarithmic. This is because the atmosphere is optically thick in the CO2 absorption bands. That is not the case for the first bit of CO2. Am I missing something? I'd appreciate any information you could provide.
If the greenhouse gasses also reduce the energy that got into the earth. Won't adding a dense layer of CO2 that covers the entire earth in a short span cools the earth instead ?
You fail completly to refer atmospheric thermal gradient. You were going well until 54°C at high altitude or about 1atm. Then pressure and temperature increase as altitude decreases.
Thanks for shaming non SI and metric system users I love that more than teasing Real Madrid fans (that in those days has become more and more difficult to have opportunity to do).
You're quite right there of course: pretty much all infrared that atmospheric CO2 can absorb it does absorb. But the key thing in how the (poorly-named) greenhouse effect works is that miles up in the air CO2 molecules start re-radiating those frequencies to space because there aren't many CO2 molecules higher in the atmosphere that might absorb those photons. Unless the Sun decides to change the amount of energy it dumps onto the Earth each second, given a pulse of extra CO2 temperatures don't level off until the temperature of the CO2 molecules doing the radiating to space increases to the same as it was before the pulse. If you double the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere then because the density of the atmosphere falls off exponentially, you increase the altitude at which the CO2 molecules doing that last bit of radiating to space are at. Then because the air temperature drops off roughly linearly with altitude, initially these CO2 molecules are too cold to radiate to space the same amount of power as pre-pulse so there's an energy imbalance until the atmosphere as a whole warms up to restore that balance. See also skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-basic.htm
If there something we learned with Physics is "tau shall not mess with constants". However, we humans have figured that earth life support may have "constants". Yet we keep messing with them. That would be like having fun poking with a person life support machinery, with barely any idea of what it does.
7:10 more clouds also mean more albedo effect and our clouds don't stay around forever (your back up analogy) unlike Venus. We also have rain which is usually cooling so climate models are basically impossible to get accurate for many more reasons.
If you found this interesting and would like to learn more about the role water vapour specifically plays in Earth's climate, check out this video I made with Dr Adam Levy! ruclips.net/video/F4XZUSiTFio/видео.html
Have you read Pierrehumbert's article about infrared radiation and planetary temperature? I really suggest you this one.
I'm gonna be honest, I am extremely angered with the first minute of this video, to the point that I had to stop it and write this down. Your starting argument about tons of CO2 on venus translating into temperature is... absolutely alien to me.
It's like if you took premise that eating a lot makes person fatter over duration of a month, and then started pondering why, if you attach a special machine to a person, machine that forcefeeds them one ton of food every day, you don't get to have 30 ton human at the end of the month, but instead a 30 day old corpse and a large pile of rotten food.
I mean why the hell would you ever assume that adding CO2 to atmosphere would lead to linear increase of temperature for so damn long? Are you from another universe where everything is linear and where geometric progression doesn't exist? Do you think that if a small candle produces 700°C flame, a candle of 1000 times greate volume will produce 700k C° flame? I just... don't have words.
I know, this is just usual clickbaiting stuff, something I'm used to, and I should be completely calm, but for some reason this specific case just brings my anger to eleven. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could ever say that. I think a quarter of my brain just died from hearing that equation...
Simon... Just why?
Edit: Thankfully, after that awful first minute, rest of the video was done reasonably well.
@@Dakerthandark do you think that, just maybe, you're not the target audience of this video because you're capable of thinking this way?
You are a purveyor of fake science. Earth's climate is governed by the internal heat of this planet and neither We, Co2, water vapour nor solar radiation have anything whatsoever to do with climate. The GHE is an anti-science scam perpetrated by the climate science conmen and frauds.
@@johnperic6860 Ah yes, I too lovely to watch the entire video before commenting
Studied all this stuff in second year planetary astronomy, and this guy comes wraps about a couple lectures worth of stuff in 10 mins :^
Really?
That's mind-blowing
@@minecraftstation6422 Yes, it doesn’t feel too hard of a concept once you walk through all of it, but doing it the first time takes some effort with all the physics and math behind it!
@@minecraftstation6422 Well, it’s a couple of lectures. It’s not that amazing….
@@griegosta7159 I meant not to the youtuber but to normal people like me who know nearly nothing in this field so this video was nice to introduce me to new things that are a bit more than scratching the surface
@@dahleno2014 but you're right of course it's not that amazing when I thought about it
Me, landing on Venus with my winter coat on: OH GOD JESUS I SHOULD HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO INSTEAD OF JUST READING THE TITLE IT BURNS
@Cyber Ghost 2.0 And it rains acid in the damn planet
@@quisqueyanguy120 so either swim up or go underground, got it
well if you were to teleport on Venus you would probably die almost in an instant because of the immense pressure. So I guess the heat is only a secondary problem on Venus at this high pressure level. But check out kurzgesagt's video on terraforming Venus if you wanna know how to change that (spoiler alert: It's really difficult and would take several thousand years, so no problem at all..)
The family joke really did catch me off-guard
The only thing stronger than the greenhouse effect is family
@@SimonClark Vin Diesel wants to know your location....
To hug you 🫂
"family" with deep vin diesel voice.
SIMOOOOON! EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOUNG MAN! WHY ARE YOU MEME SHIT POSTING IN YOUR SCIENCE VIDEOS?
Young man, in a world where everything is made out of balloons, you are the one boy who brought a pin to school. You've let me down, let yourself down, you've let your school down, you've let your family down... FAMILY!?!? ASDFGHGAGDH
I still wasn’t prepared
"why is Venus so cold?"
- Canadians after the last heat wave
You had me for a sec man. I was like; since when was Venus cold?
Ya
relatively spoken venus really is cold. When you bake something in your oven for an hour at 200°C but in the end the thing you baked only has 80°C its relatively spoken cold allthough 80°C is hot enough to burn your hands.
So indians too see his videos
That awkward moment when you use a semi colon to appear educated but use it incorrectly 😂
ass backwards overly complicated thought on his part
Kurzgesat: We can maybe terraform venus if we removed most of its atmosphere
Simon: hold up
make a co2 moon!
I pointed out on that video that the main issue with venus is it lack of tectonic movement not everything else
Isn't that kind of solved when the surface temperature goes below a level that fuses the crust together?
@@emperoroftheuniverse5950 we can't see from here but due to Venus lack of magnetic field, there is virtually zero convection in the core, and you are looking at millions of years for the crust to cool down enough
Kurzgesagt*
"You'd last longer on Mars without a spacesuit than on Venus *with* a spacesuit." That really puts the Venusian surface's inhospitableness in perspective.
I only wish RUclipsrs stopped showing cooling towers in a context of CO2 emissions. I know it's a pretty picture, but you are not helping with the problem of scaremongering people against nuclear plants. Just show a god damn coal plant or some oil processing plant. The only thing cooling towers use is air and water, and "emit" water vapor.
Other than that, nice video 👍
Was about to say as well
A lot of coal plants in my area use cooling towers like that
@@Tourmaliminal But the gas coming out of the tower isn't some poisonous radiation fume, it's literally just water, and this type of cooling tower is very associated with nuclear power
If you think cooling towers are exclusively found in nuclear plants, you're not as smart as you think you are and you shouldn't be making a comment like this. Maybe stick to topics that you actually know something about.
@@Toahmisae If you ask the average person what this cooling tower means to them, I bet they would say nuclear reactor
"RIDICULOUS." As a USAmerican, I could not agree more.
I disagree. Celsius and Kelvin are great scientific scales based around absolute zero and the freezing and boiling points of water. Fahrenheit is a good “human scale” temperature system based around the extremes that humans encounter in the Earth’s environment. All the scales have their uses. Snobbery around temperature scales is ridiculous.
@@7eardstapa7 well in the Midwest it definetly gets much colder than 0 F, and in the south and southwest it can get hotter than 100 F, so that isn't really true
@@--julian_ in the Midwest it can go from -60 to 110 lmao
@@--julian_ The 0-100 °F scale is more likely to match Earth temperatures than the 0-100 °C one.
Your Room is 333K warm?! Thats quite warm
RUclips subscriber counter.
If you really asked. But also though about that. :D
What man could call himself british without keeping his house a comfy 60C?
I prefer around 290K in winter.
Really enjoyed the video, informative, good info graphics, and felt very accessible.
I had to click on this for the sheer fact of Venus being described as "cold".
"Fahrenheit if you're ridiculous!" and proceeds to show a giant 'RIDICULOUS' sign painted over America. Genius XD
Fully endorse the “ridiculous” on the planet for Fahrenheit my dear Simon :D
My favorite way of referring to it is the “rectum derived scale”, as Fahrenheit literally used the temperature of inside of his cows as a reference!
(And there was some debate on whether those original cows had a fever…)
I think the metric system is far superior for many things but Fahrenheit just makes sense if you think of it this way......0 degrees = very cold...........100 degrees = very hot. For most places, or cities, on Earth, we rarely experience temperatures outside that range, so to me anyways, it makes sense.
@@saganworshipper6062 in the whole rest of the world no one ever go confused with Celsius. 35 degrees is hot for the rest of us and that's fine.
Yet the conversion of units when working internationally or keeping the scientific unit different from the everyday scale does have costs.
@@SamirWise Well maybe you're just a hater. Regardless, it doesn't look like it's going away any time soon in America, so as long as you're not in America I guess it doesn't matter. But if you do happen to find yourself somewhere that only has F readings, now you have my handy guide to help you. 0=COLD (BRRRR) 100=HOT (SWEATY) simple. Have a great day!
@@saganworshipper6062 But what i really need to know is whether the road conditions could get icy or not.
@@TheCountess666 That's what the beeping sound in my BMW is for. It tells you exactly when lol. Freezing temp for water is 32.
Nice! It really illustrates how many "little" factors can create an outcome!
Despite being an American, I totally agree with the fact that we're ridiculous. Metric is actually based on useful stuff, why the hell do we use Imperial?
No one wants to change.
And for most people wether they use imperial or metric doesn't really matter. Since they are not doing calculations with it. They are using it to know how much of something they are using or purchasing on day to day items. Which could be based on anything as long as it is easy to use.
Everyone that needs to do calculations in the US just use metric. But wether you get a one lb of bologna versus half a kilo of bologna at the grocery is not really a huge difference to put the effort to change.
@@shy8054 yeah I know. The people who need to use metric do use it, while others mostly don't care. Still, I will always standby the opinion that metric is superior, even though I doubt it will change soon (if ever)
One stange thing, a war was fought to get away from that empire, but its arbitrary units are defended so strongly.
"We really don't need a second."
Martian terraforming advocates took offense to that.
Okay, that title really caught my attention
Clickbait but only for the right audience lol
Why is Venus so cold? Because she forgot to put a coat on!
I hate you
because after the three hundred eightieth fur coat, each new coat isn't really making a difference anymore
This video actually really improved my understanding of the effect of greenhouse gases in atmospheres. Thanks for your work!
@@johnperic6860 Please link the part of the video where he does that and show your calculation in more detail.
I love how the "natural" extrapolation is always linear.
Haha lines go brrr
Except, of course, it usually isn't They use an expression on Wall Street that's useful here: "trees don't grow to the sky" with the implication that, ultimately, negative feedbacks prevail over the positive feedback loops climate science struggles to model as it is.
That's not so say we should ignore the duration or intensity of the positive feedback stage as we move off of a pre-existing equilibrium, just that complex systems like the climate are devilishly hard to model with anything approaching certainty.
linear or exponential
Meanwhile reality is always logistic.
“Gentlemen that is not acceptable.” Awesome.
Never thought venus could be described as being cold
These videos are so well put together and informative, thoroughly enjoyable!
Gre8 to see you again Simon...✨😊
Yet again a informative and beautifully elucidated video...🙌
the "ridiculous" joke is really just that, I love it :D
Loved the video! We really don't need a second plant full of Co2 xD.
I really like how you structured this video, i thought i was disagreeing with you during the first half, which was an interesting twist when i realized i wasn't.
My first video that I've seen from you so you got yourself a new sub :)
Thank you for the work writing on the globe
6:29 Simon jumping on the fast and furious family meme Best thing ever
I subscribed to this channel because I found Simon such a dish but the content of all the videos are truly gripping. Keep up the excellent work.
Great video! How do you make all your animations? As an online Physics Professor I am always looking to improve what I use to demonstrate physics to my students. Any chance you wanna drop by on our zoom:)?
03:50 The US is indeed ridiculous
In what way? Also are you talking about the government, the people, or the culture? Which coast? (Each coast has different governments, different people, and a different culture) If it's the government you're mocking then I'm with you. The government is ENTIRELY ridiculous. It's built on "freedom" while taking away as much REAL freedom as possible.
@@jacobash5904 I think he’s talking about the government. Some of the people are too to be fair, but the cultures are just fun
I figured it was because the US uses Fahrenheit since he said Fahrenheit users were ridiculous earlier in the video at 1:28.
@@jacobash5904 its a joke, likely referring to the weird imperial units and such
@@ferrox8421 yea
Yeah, I discovered this when I wrote a report about the evolution of Venus' atmosphere. I didn't understand the most of the temperature on the surface was primarily due to the high pressure and not so much the CO2.
The idea that most of the temperature on the surface of Venus is primarily due to high pressure is highly misleading (and is is standard assertion of climate science deniers). If Venus had the same atmospheric pressure with an atmosphere made of nitrogen or argon (without any greenhouse gases), then the surface would be hundreds of degrees colder than it is. There are ways of thinking about the surface temperature of Venus that involve pressure, but those dynamics only function as they do because of the presence of greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide); they don’t produce warming in the absence of those gases. So, it’s misleading to think of those mechanisms as primary. / For a debunking of a paper that claims “planetary temperatures are all about pressure” you might look at www.quora.com/Did-Nikolov-and-Zeller-prove-that-atmospheres-warm-planets-only-through-pressure-and-not-as-a-result-of-greenhouse-gases/answer/Bob-Wentworth?ch=99&share=7b4b8dae&srid=nCNt / I don’t know what arguments or sources you referenced in your report. Given more information, I could possibly put the argument you found into more context.
@@zzubra Thank you, I will check it out.
It's the CO2, not the pressure. Like, for example, there is so much CO2 that the pressure comes from the CO2, like how the temperature comes from the CO2. The CO2 comes from the volcanoes.
I don't know what I expected knowing how close Venus is too the sun but I thought it would be well cold.
Here is a paper explaining a very compelling theory of the warming mechanism that operates on planets that have an atmosphere. It not only explains the reason for the surface temperatures but also why the core is so hot as well.
Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures
Douglas J Cotton, B.Sc.(Physics), B.A., Dip.Bus.Admin
Fucking solid Apollo 13 meme lad
1:06 I appreciate this edit very much.
1:27 that is much better.
This was really cool! I take IB SL Physics (similar to AS Physics) and I loved how you used some of the concepts we've learnt (i.e. the inverse square law)- it's really nice to stretch my understanding of how these concepts can be applied!
This was a really cool video bro! 😎
7:52 "We already have one experiment showing the effects of having lots of CO2 in the atmosphere; we really don't need a second."
Replication study
you could write a sci-fi novel where a superior race is so corrupt and morally decrepit that it decides to start a science project to heat up another planet that's already inhabited by other sentient creatures just to see what's gonna happen.
hard to replicate, we need to shut down the geological Carbon cycle otherwise its a very poor replication
Thanks for the 20% discount! This will be super helpful for prepping for going back to uni and such
Love your videos, Simon! 💚
Clicked for the title, stayed for the A+ t-shirt.
You miss a few points.
Pressure (atmospheric density) is also important!
Positive feedbacks are scientific unproven, only used in modeling to rule out any natural variations (which exist!).
Simon: "Why Venus is so COLD"
RUclips: *adds an information panel cuz it is prone to misinformation
I'm struggling to figure out why RUclips is showing me the link to climate change on Earth over this video about Venus. I get that they're trying to fact check, but seriously, this is an entirely different planet.
Maybe the "fact checkers" aren't as smart as they're sold on being.
Probably because there's also a significant amount of content relating to earth's climate and climate change here.
Daniel Gale has it right, it's RUclips policy to put a link to credible information on climate change under every video that mentions it. It's their way of combating disinformation; in case the video says something incorrect, the viewer can just click the link and fact check it themselves. They do the same with COVID.
Since this video ties the temperature of Venus in to global warming on Earth, it qualifies for the climate change link.
Calling us ridiculous while your cats water fountain doesn't dispense tea. The audacity haha
Simon great content but please put that mic somewhere else. I wanna see a clean crew neck lines
So CO2 is vin diesel, he just need the family
Legend says Venus was origianlly a hot planet but after scientists named it Venus it got cold
3:47 love that little detail "ridiculous" written in the USA
The real reason Venus isn’t warmer is because it has so much sulfur dioxide which is a negative feedback
Our ecosystem is a gem. We're crushing it. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
I think the carbon footprint of the "civilian industrial complex" is far larger.
Not to mention our biggest developer and users of nuclear power is our united states military.
@@fromnorway643 you must be on the military industrial complex payroll...
@@lorenzoblum868
Far from it!
The world would definitely be a better place if the resources spent on the military was used on other things, but most of the ecological destruction is caused by civilian activities.
Another great video Simon😁
Hahahaha that impression of the comment at the end, spot on!
I never thought I’d see the word only in front of 460°C
It depends ... try starting a fusion reaction.
People have been complaining about those Family memes on Facebook for the past week, I straight up choked on my drink when it came up.
Aww, man. I'm shivering
I'm from the Venusian North Pole and I got to agree, it's pretty chilly year round.
I love the shirt. Great episode! THRILLHOUSE!
Great clarification
That is why you've got to be careful when you extrapolate that far out from so little data.
I take this as a rejoinder to the Kurzgesagt Venus Terraforming video from this week.
So interesting! Great subject!
"Why is venus so cold?"
Thumbnail: 460°C
"why is Venus so cold?"
*I'm not in a Warframe video... I think*
coolant
fish
Being called the Ridiculous States of America is the least of the insults we've heard. Bring 'em on!!
smart thumbnail
I've always disliked the phrasing of "warm air holding more water", the air itself has practically nothing to do with absolute humidity. I think we should make a collective effort to just talk about it in terms of water's vapour pressure.
I don't quite understand what you're saying but it also proves a point that "warm air holds more water" is just easier to get the idea across (unless it's wrong, then i would ask you what's wrong with the statement)
@@davidtitanium22 it's not an easier idea to get across, it's just a misconception. Saying warm water gives off more water vapour is just as simple, I think. And remember, the air is almost completely irrelevant - the amount of water vapour would be the same if there was absolutely no air.
@@davidtitanium22 Namerson is correct, but he is being purposefully vague.
The principle of of water vaporising is wholly temperature based, and only related to air temperature in that air temperature is a prime cause for water becoming warmer.
The Wikipedia page on evaporation is helpful "When a molecule near the surface absorbs enough energy to overcome the vapor pressure, it will escape and enter the surrounding air as a gas."
The presence of other gasses (ie atmosphere) is not needed for evaporation.
Great video!
HAHAHA the apollo 13 meme made me burst out laughing, alone in my room. Brilliant!
The amount of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere is affected by how the vapor is removed from the atmosphere. The vapor tends to climb up (sometimes later, but it will...) and turn into a cloud. The cloud is no more vapor and its greenhouse effect is different from vapor's.
The weather system can remove huge amounts of vapor by changing it into a cloud and raining it down. This way the weather system beats the climate system.
Climbing vapor makes a strong latent convection passing all greenhouse filters.
you mentioned more co2 = warmer air = more clouds( water vapor). have you taken the increased cloud formation into account (blocking sunlight) or is this effect neglectable?
This is a great point! Yes cloud formation is taken into account when discussing climate sensitivity, in fact it's one of the biggest uncertainties - will the negative feedback of increasing albedo outweigh the increased water vapour in the air? In fact, I actually did a whole video with Dr Adam Levy on this: ruclips.net/video/F4XZUSiTFio/видео.html
Increased cloud formation equals increase in heat trapped.
@@KarryKarryKarry Yeah, a bit more complicated than that. If the types of cloud formed and the size of the clouds generated are consistent to today’s. If cloud formation processes are linear with increased temp. Etc. As Simon says in the video this is the largest uncertainty in climate sensitivity calculation. But we need to be thinking worst case rather than hoping for best case. We only have the one planet. We don’t want to conduct another runaway CO2 experiment in the solar system.
@@byrnemeister2008 We need to be thinking that gravity is a potential driver of climate change & Webb could indeed turn everything we know on it's head in less than a year away.
@@byrnemeister2008 why even bother when the guy can’t even calculate his shoe size 🤷♂️
I guess we can conclude that the climate impact of CO₂ isn't linear, but it isn't logarithmic either when considering a range spanning several orders of magnitude rather than just a few doublings.
My first thought: Venus is a Queen and she is just herself. She just is who she is and doesn’t give a care. Then I realised you meant the planet. I then realised I’ve been watching too much much drag race.
_"Doubling CO2 will raise temperatures by 1.5-4.5C."_ Which would still put us well below Earth's normal temperatures and CO2 levels. Also, the history of Earth's CO2 levels vs its temperatures indicate that the two aren't as strongly correlated as many scientists theorize and our models aren't much better than our models about water vapor. You also forgot to mention that while water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, in the form of clouds, water vapor actually cools the planet dramatically, reflecting almost all light that hits it back into space. The more clouds you have, the cooler the planet will be, though more water vapor doesn't necessarily = more clouds.
normal =/= good
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI True but it also certainly doesn't = apocalypse.
@@tristunalekzander5608 but it does mean all the issues as listed in the IPCC Reports
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Like what?
@@tristunalekzander5608 Idk maybe read it
You say that Earth is so far down the curve from Venus that putting more CO2 into out atmosphere now is about the same as putting in the first bit. That doesn't sound right. Earth's CO2 sensitivity is currently logarithmic. This is because the atmosphere is optically thick in the CO2 absorption bands. That is not the case for the first bit of CO2.
Am I missing something? I'd appreciate any information you could provide.
Calling me a ho is one thing, but a thrillho? That's just... accurate...
if the heating caused by co2 was linear, we could just keep adding co2 to a planet and it would never stop heating, until it was hotter than the sun
My preferred temperature scale is Newton
Should we tell this guy the SI measurment system?
Nah, he is fine the way he is
Simon has that Ikea shelf swag
If the greenhouse gasses also reduce the energy that got into the earth. Won't adding a dense layer of CO2 that covers the entire earth in a short span cools the earth instead ?
No, because incoming radiation isn't intercepted by CO2 at the usual wavelengths. Its the reflected wavelengths that ghg's trap.
Great video
But… but trott said Venus was a gas giant
who TF is trott?
Have you read Pierrehumbert's article about infrared radiation and planetary temperature? I really suggest you this one.
Poor Venus. Look what we did to her before we left! There won't be any planet hopping this time. Mars just isn't going to cut it.
The title and thumbnail confused me so much lol
You fail completly to refer atmospheric thermal gradient. You were going well until 54°C at high altitude or about 1atm. Then pressure and temperature increase as altitude decreases.
Do you have a live sub counter in your background? Wild!
Thanks for shaming non SI and metric system users I love that more than teasing Real Madrid fans (that in those days has become more and more difficult to have opportunity to do).
IS .0028K the correct value obtained from radiative forcing?
No matter how much CO2 you have, you can't block the emission of more than 100% of infra-red light.
You're quite right there of course: pretty much all infrared that atmospheric CO2 can absorb it does absorb. But the key thing in how the (poorly-named) greenhouse effect works is that miles up in the air CO2 molecules start re-radiating those frequencies to space because there aren't many CO2 molecules higher in the atmosphere that might absorb those photons.
Unless the Sun decides to change the amount of energy it dumps onto the Earth each second, given a pulse of extra CO2 temperatures don't level off until the temperature of the CO2 molecules doing the radiating to space increases to the same as it was before the pulse. If you double the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere then because the density of the atmosphere falls off exponentially, you increase the altitude at which the CO2 molecules doing that last bit of radiating to space are at. Then because the air temperature drops off roughly linearly with altitude, initially these CO2 molecules are too cold to radiate to space the same amount of power as pre-pulse so there's an energy imbalance until the atmosphere as a whole warms up to restore that balance.
See also skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-basic.htm
If there something we learned with Physics is "tau shall not mess with constants".
However, we humans have figured that earth life support may have "constants".
Yet we keep messing with them.
That would be like having fun poking with a person life support machinery, with barely any idea of what it does.
2:02 not to scale XD
Venus lost all its water vapour, must have been wild there when the surface water started boiling.
In other words, “we don’t actually know how much it will be, so we shouldn’t split hairs over it.”
7:10 more clouds also mean more albedo effect and our clouds don't stay around forever (your back up analogy) unlike Venus. We also have rain which is usually cooling so climate models are basically impossible to get accurate for many more reasons.
Rain doesn't cool down the earth...
Mars has high co2 why isn't it warmer?