This is almost accurate. They haven't said anything wrong, but they don't say HOW the incoming IR radiation heats the earth and STAYS, without re-radiating back to space. Land and atmosphere don't store heat. Only the oceans can store any measurable amount of heat. They should explain how the IR radiation gets into the oceans and comes back out again as climate. This is very complex, but it's a key part of understanding the GHE.
- The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates 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. - 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 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). --------- 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 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.
Actually, what they have said is incorrect. Colder gases (less energy) in our atmosphere at 10,000 foot elevation cannot 'warm' anything. All they can do is lose energy to space. The people who write this stuff have no grasp of basic Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics. Our atmosphere is not a Greenhouse, but a chimney... Good thing the Sun comes back each day.
@Rotenone They officially put that on the planetary fact sheet for Earth about 2 years ago. I asked for records of previous BB temperatures, they never got back to me for some reason, probably the lock downs from Covid. Use to be 255 Kelvin but the last solar cycle was pretty weak.
The explanation at 2:09 to 3:02 of how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere works is DEFINITELY COMPLETELY INCORRECT. There are indeed a few correct descriptions of the physics around the Internet (that colder gas parcels radiate less than warmer gas parcels) but I suppose it's considered poor form to advertise some directly-competing videos in the comments of a video. A correct description MUST include an accurate description of the ESSENTIAL role of what's called the "tropospheric temperature lapse rate". There's few around, find one.
1.)The surface would not be -18C w/o ghgs. Is the Moon -18C in direct sunlight? No it's around 120C without ghgs we would still have an atmosphere and its function is to reduce temperature not increase it and maintain an ideal decreased temperature longer say overnight. Which the water cycle in the form of phase changes is the main regulator of those temperatures. 2.)Nothing is being "trapped" it is being re-directed and we are talking about light which moves at the speed of light. Not all energy equals heat and not all EM energy is re-absorbed back into the surface and if it is does not mean it is increasing the temperature in a fluid dynamic system with open convection. 3. The troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium and will never be in thermal equilibrium which means "forcing" which would be from a closed system is not a valid claim for an open convective system without an energy source (such as the Sun or geothermal). 4. CO2 has been much higher regionally and locally, Tyndale omitted those facts from his work. 5. The global average is 15C (NASA Earth fact sheet) and that average surface temperature has not changed in around 45 years. The blackbody temperature, often associated with the global average, has gone down a degree in Kelvin, according to NASA. Toss on top of that, "There is no, and never has been, ANY empirical evidence for the basis of climate alarm and climate science. The entire field of climate is basically simply a pseudoscience of political expedience which ends with the vilification of the life molecule of carbon dioxide." ruclips.net/video/oQ4DZ1elZdA/видео.html NAMASTE 🙏
@@cdmarshall7448 Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. 1. That's a thought experiment based on the Earth's albedo remaining the same. 2. "Trapped" is a popular description of the process, not how the greenhouse effect actually works. 3. The atmosphere is in long-term thermal equilibrium, because if it were not, it would be steadily heating up or cooling down, and we would now be either vaporized or frozen. That's what "thermal equilibrium" MEANS. 4. CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Nobody cares about temporary local variations, and they are not relevant to Tyndall's work, which in any case is not all that modern radiative transfer theory depends on. A lot has happened since 1858. 5. The mean global annual temperature has risen 1.2 K from 1850 to today, and most of that was in the last 50 years. Read and learn: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt Toss on top of that, Just because you're not familiar with the mountains of evidence behind this field doesn't mean there's no evidence; only that you're ignorant.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427 1. It's a failed assertion not based on physics. The tropics would be hotter and the poles colder. Nocturnal radiative inversions would increase. Without clouds albedo would decrease, increasing surface insolation. So yes it is a false claim to stipulate the Earth would be 255 Kelvin. 2.The only "real" property of a "greenhouse gas" is that it has a dipole moment making it able to absorb certain line spectrum of electromagnetic infrared radiation and re-radiate that energy. Again energy is absorbed and reradiated, heat is an action on increasing T. Superfluous exposition to call it anything else. 3. The atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, it is in quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium dP/dZ density*gravity. More to the point the troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium, show me dT>0 anywhere? LTE is possible and even that is arbitrary. The adiabatic process maintains a relative homogenous atmosphere. Convective currents strongly influence dT in the lower atmosphere. 1800s were based on a handful of stations and according to satellite based data starting in 1979 we are indeed presently cooling. Which cooling or warming is irrelevant since CO2 is not and has never been the driver of climate. I guess you missed the potential heat capacity of 1,338,000,000 km^3 of ocean? Oceans strongly influenced long term T variances. Mountains of assertions is not evidence. Especially when they can't intelligently grasp radiative forcing or comprehensively account for insolation. Holocene Thermal Maximum is long gone. Sorry you missed it.
@@cdmarshall7448 Well, you're completely wrong or irrelevant in everything you say, but I've got a life that consists of more than arguing with crackpots, so I'm not going to respond further. Feel free to have the last word.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427 It's just physics. Denying that is just denying the real science. This doesn't change for the radiative greenhouse gas effect theory. (Th^4-Tc^4) Cheers
Who is here cause your doing school work
Me
I was just curious
Me
skibidi me
This is almost accurate. They haven't said anything wrong, but they don't say HOW the incoming IR radiation heats the earth and STAYS, without re-radiating back to space. Land and atmosphere don't store heat. Only the oceans can store any measurable amount of heat. They should explain how the IR radiation gets into the oceans and comes back out again as climate. This is very complex, but it's a key part of understanding the GHE.
- The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates 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.
- 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 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).
---------
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 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.
Actually, what they have said is incorrect. Colder gases (less energy) in our atmosphere at 10,000 foot elevation cannot 'warm' anything. All they can do is lose energy to space.
The people who write this stuff have no grasp of basic Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics.
Our atmosphere is not a Greenhouse, but a chimney...
Good thing the Sun comes back each day.
How bout actually trying some science for a change?
@Rotenone They officially put that on the planetary fact sheet for Earth about 2 years ago. I asked for records of previous BB temperatures, they never got back to me for some reason, probably the lock downs from Covid.
Use to be 255 Kelvin but the last solar cycle was pretty weak.
The explanation at 2:09 to 3:02 of how the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere works is DEFINITELY COMPLETELY INCORRECT. There are indeed a few correct descriptions of the physics around the Internet (that colder gas parcels radiate less than warmer gas parcels) but I suppose it's considered poor form to advertise some directly-competing videos in the comments of a video. A correct description MUST include an accurate description of the ESSENTIAL role of what's called the "tropospheric temperature lapse rate". There's few around, find one.
Congrats if you see this lol
-f
Hello
Long squiggle bad
Helloo
C
U
di seluruh planet hasilnya
atau keluar ke samping
itu turun ke bumi
Wow.
Uhhhh 😦
I love 😍🥰 your way of teaching a lot ☺️👍👍🎈
Thank you! 😃
really helped me understand!
Nicely done!
1.)The surface would not be -18C w/o ghgs. Is the Moon -18C in direct sunlight? No it's around 120C without ghgs we would still have an atmosphere and its function is to reduce temperature not increase it and maintain an ideal decreased temperature longer say overnight. Which the water cycle in the form of phase changes is the main regulator of those temperatures.
2.)Nothing is being "trapped" it is being re-directed and we are talking about light which moves at the speed of light. Not all energy equals heat and not all EM energy is re-absorbed back into the surface and if it is does not mean it is increasing the temperature in a fluid dynamic system with open convection.
3. The troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium and will never be in thermal equilibrium which means "forcing" which would be from a closed system is not a valid claim for an open convective system without an energy source (such as the Sun or geothermal).
4. CO2 has been much higher regionally and locally, Tyndale omitted those facts from his work.
5. The global average is 15C (NASA Earth fact sheet) and that average surface temperature has not changed in around 45 years. The blackbody temperature, often associated with the global average, has gone down a degree in Kelvin, according to NASA.
Toss on top of that,
"There is no, and never has been, ANY empirical evidence for the basis of climate alarm and climate science. The entire field of climate is basically simply a pseudoscience of political expedience which ends with the vilification of the life molecule of carbon dioxide."
ruclips.net/video/oQ4DZ1elZdA/видео.html
NAMASTE 🙏
@@cdmarshall7448 Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. 1. That's a thought experiment based on the Earth's albedo remaining the same. 2. "Trapped" is a popular description of the process, not how the greenhouse effect actually works. 3. The atmosphere is in long-term thermal equilibrium, because if it were not, it would be steadily heating up or cooling down, and we would now be either vaporized or frozen. That's what "thermal equilibrium" MEANS. 4. CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Nobody cares about temporary local variations, and they are not relevant to Tyndall's work, which in any case is not all that modern radiative transfer theory depends on. A lot has happened since 1858. 5. The mean global annual temperature has risen 1.2 K from 1850 to today, and most of that was in the last 50 years. Read and learn:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Toss on top of that,
Just because you're not familiar with the mountains of evidence behind this field doesn't mean there's no evidence; only that you're ignorant.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427
1. It's a failed assertion not based on physics. The tropics would be hotter and the poles colder. Nocturnal radiative inversions would increase. Without clouds albedo would decrease, increasing surface insolation. So yes it is a false claim to stipulate the Earth would be 255 Kelvin.
2.The only "real" property of a "greenhouse gas" is that it has a dipole moment making it able to absorb certain line spectrum of electromagnetic infrared radiation and re-radiate that energy. Again energy is absorbed and reradiated, heat is an action on increasing T. Superfluous exposition to call it anything else.
3. The atmosphere is not in thermal equilibrium, it is in quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium dP/dZ density*gravity. More to the point the troposphere is not in thermal equilibrium, show me dT>0 anywhere? LTE is possible and even that is arbitrary. The adiabatic process maintains a relative homogenous atmosphere. Convective currents strongly influence dT in the lower atmosphere.
1800s were based on a handful of stations and according to satellite based data starting in 1979 we are indeed presently cooling. Which cooling or warming is irrelevant since CO2 is not and has never been the driver of climate. I guess you missed the potential heat capacity of 1,338,000,000 km^3 of ocean?
Oceans strongly influenced long term T variances.
Mountains of assertions is not evidence. Especially when they can't intelligently grasp radiative forcing or comprehensively account for insolation.
Holocene Thermal Maximum is long gone. Sorry you missed it.
@@cdmarshall7448 Well, you're completely wrong or irrelevant in everything you say, but I've got a life that consists of more than arguing with crackpots, so I'm not going to respond further. Feel free to have the last word.
@@bartonpaullevenson3427
It's just physics. Denying that is just denying the real science.
This doesn't change for the radiative greenhouse gas effect theory.
(Th^4-Tc^4)
Cheers
yes, more