Thank you so much for having us MinuteEarth. It was so cool to work with people who really know what they are talking about - we never worked with a team that was so thorough about every single detail. The amount work and love to detail Minuteearth put in their videos is impressive. Definitely reflected on us. Also, everyone who is looking for the Tardis: We forgot to put it in. Sorry.
***** you also worked pretty hard for this video, youre quality is usually really good but in this video is fantastic (I have the feeling animating molecules bouncing all over the place was really hard)
Yuro Lohe Within the first second I was wondering why MinuteEarth stole Kurzgesagt's animation. Then I read the description. This is a great collaboration.
sibtain ali There were ducks on this. BTW, Henry needs to learn German. He said Kurz Gesagt wrong and I learned that Henry's last name, Reich, means Kingdom in German. So German is a must learn for Henry!
ipodtouchiscoollol He didn't say 100 or -140 is unlivable, he said -18 is unlivable. Which is silly, because Oymyakon has an average -31, proving that -18 is quite livable.
trolltacular1 Water vapor is about 30 times better than CO2. CO2 doesn't trap hardly any heat. This is just a dumbed-down generalization for the public. The question posed by global warming hypothesists is: does the excess CO2 we've put into the atmosphere cause an increase in surface temperature which results in a runaway greenhouse affect? The CO2 is simply a trigger in this hypothesis which sets off a cascade of other things which results in the earth becoming warmed very rapidly. Most people only know what they are told in public school and by the media: CO2 BAD! It is far more complicated. However, the divisiveness of the subject is quite simple. We now have zealots on either side of the issue which serve to sell books, get votes, or leverage businesses. The only people who have a handle on things are those who know what science really is. They are the ones who know this is simply a hypothesis and cannot really be tested for efficacy, thus leading to what is a true scientific theory (such as the theory of quantum mechanics). However, studying these ill-affects (or lack thereof) leads to a better understanding of our climate systems in general and even of our understanding of the earth itself. Just don't let politics ruin the fun of reading the research :)
Jon Hall Global warming is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it is perfectly clear that the excess CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere is causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Kurz Gesagt's illustration and animation style is probably my favorite in RUclips's education channels, followed by some of Ted-ed's animators and MinuteEarth. It's great to see two awesome channels working together.
Looks like *the greenhouse effect is an adiabatic (pressure-induced) process* and therefore *does not depend on the composition of the atmosphere.* The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is thus *irrelevant* to the greenhouse effect, because its concentration in the atmosphere doesn't affect the intensity of such effect. Here's the DOI code of such scientific paper: *10.4172/2573-458X.1000112*
Before anyone mentions that the heat seems to be going ahead of CO2 release in the graph at 2:32, here's the explanation. Yes, historically the start of warming precedes the rapid release of CO2 (giving it a 'head start', thus appearing to stay ahead of CO2 at all times). However, over 90% of warming occurs after CO2 begins being released in significant amounts. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html Warming generally starts with Milankovitch cycles, which are variations in Earth's position in space, which alters the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth. When the cycles line up 'correctly', Earth starts to warm. This warming leads to warmer ocean temperatures, which lowers the solubility of CO2 in them, and melts permafrost, which releases GHGs from the frozen soils. That CO2 then builds up in the atmosphere, capturing more IR energy. This sets off a cycle of continued warming until another geologic circumstance reverses the cycle. The warming may start before the rapid release of GHGs, but without the GHGs there simply wouldn't be very much warming. This is one of many ways that climatologists know our current warming climate isn't primarily caused by nature. There is no noticeable trigger in our records of the Milankovitch cycles which explains why the warming started.
Warming always precedes release of heat from any gas. Plancks Law. This is the case of earth's history of climate. Little Ice Age ends. Warming begins. CO2 follows.
CO2 doesn't capture any IR...it scatters it and it doesn't equate to heating the surface. Surface temperatures can be accurately predicted and backed up with NASA probe data which are independent of the atmospheric content just by using dimensional analysis and the ideal gas laws relating temperature and pressure. And the explanation doesn't violate thermodynamic laws as does climate theory and the flat earth model for the energy budget...with a cold sun no less. It's complete nonsense.
It's rare I comment on these videos, but I just wanna say those animations were a) really well done & un-intrusive and b) sold this video in such a fluid yet easily understood way. Well done on using all that Patreon funding so well guys/thanks for the videos!
Awesome vid as always, but yeah this animation is just great. Really hope you do more collaborations with them, the simple but effective animations coupled with your excellent explanations created a great learning experience.
It does rather miss the point of the shorter wavelength light passing more easily through the atmosphere, whereby it then strikes the ground, heating it, and then is radiated out at a long wavelength. This is then more fully absorbed, and reflected by the atmosphere.
Joshua Mcateer well to be fair to the the video is about "how do green house gasses work" not "how does the green house gas effect" work. i'd make a small argument those are slightly different videos. i do with they covered the entirety of the green house gas effect though. this was amazing physics i didn't know though
One evening, while living in the Rio Grande Valley and helping my father cover his citrus trees to help protect them against a freeze predicted for later that night, I found myself hoping and praying for heavy overcast to replace the current clear skies. We’d never heard of the greenhouse effect at that time, but we knew that a blanket of clouds (water vapor) would slow down the escape of Earth’s heat. My dad had already flooded the ground around the trees and prepped his smudge pots to be lit at the appropriate moment (for the blanketing effect of carbon laden air). As the thermometer continued to slowly but surely drop, we nervously sat listening to the reports on the radio. Then, just as temperatures neared freezing, a bank of clouds moved in over the region and the rate of temperature decrease slowed and stopped at 30 degrees (F.). An hour later, the sun peeked over the horizon and very slowly the temperature began to rise. Damage to the fruit and trees was avoided without having lit the smudge pots. My point is that even though some people may not believe in the greenhouse effect, they’re almost certainly not citrus growers. Search: smudge pots infrared radiation
When i first saw this video, i felt weird because i know minuteearth don’t do kurgesagt animations. But after i watched this video, i knew kurgesagt animated this and minuteearth talk
Pretty close, except the ice record shows the opposite relationship. CO2 changes don't cause large changes in temperature, temperature changes cause increases in atmospheric CO2. That's why the data shows temperature changes leading CO2 changes by around 800 years, and temperatures begin cooling off while CO2 concentrations are still at local maximums. Other than that, great video!
skylarscaling It's a bit more complicated that that. Relatively small changes in temperature can cause CO2 concentrations to increase (mainly because a warmer ocean can't hold as much dissolved CO2), and then the increased CO2 leads to the large temperature changes. So if something happens to directly increase the CO2 concentrations, say by combusting a bunch of carbon that used to be trapped in coal and oil, you'd still see the temperatures rise.
Matthew Prorok This is the "feedback" theory of CO2 driven warming, but sadly that is disproved by the historical record. Global temperature begins to DECREASE with atmospheric CO2 at local maximum levels. Yes, CO2 contributes to warming effects, but the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as the net effect of CO2 relative to the much more common water vapor are much more important. That's why you see this lagging effect of CO2 behind temperature, because it is not driving temperature, it is responding to it, exactly as you explained (as well as increases in plant growth and animal abundance, which also increase natural CO2 output).
skylarscaling Historically, yes. Because historically, you didn't have CO2 being directly placed into the atmosphere in large quantities. CO2 is not itself temperature dependent; it doesn't care if the air is warm or cold, it doesn't condense out at temperatures we experience on Earth. The primary sources of atmospheric CO2, other than human activity, do vary with temperature. Yes, historically, temperatures begin to decrease before CO2 levels; they have to, because just as warming oceans release the gas, cooling oceans can dissolve more of it. And unless there's a massive plant bloom that captures a ludicrous amount of carbon (as happened with the aptly named Carboniferous period), there's not really anywhere else for it to go. But that doesn't mean the CO2 is responding to the temperature; the change is in the properties of the water, not the CO2. What makes CO2 the control knob on the climate is that it's easy to change. Water is too temperature dependent; it can amplify warming, but can't cause it. The Sun can spark either warming or cooling, depending on what it does, and is the typical source of climatic shifts, but it's relatively stable, and nothing that happens on Earth is going to affect it. Huge changes in living things, such as the Great Oxygen Catastrophe or the Carboniferous or the Azolla event, can do the trick, but that's BECAUSE they affect the concentrations of atmospheric CO2, not because they directly change the planet's energy budget. At the moment, the huge thing going on with living things is humans. And what we're doing is increasing CO2 concentrations.
Matthew Prorok That ignores the documented CO2 concentrations in history that were well above 400ppm during COOLING trends. The idea that the proportionally SMALL amount of CO2 humans are contributing is somehow tipping some delicate balance is not supported by ANY scientific evidence. We've had higher CO2 concentrations NUMEROUS times in the history of the earth, and we've never experienced dangerous warming. Furthermore, this completely ignores the effectual side of warming. A warmer planet is universally GOOD. It means more plant growth, more animal life, higher crop yields, and overall BETTER life on the planet. There is no scientific support for the idea that a warmer planet is somehow a bad thing. The most biologically diverse and successful periods in the history of the earth were warmer than today. We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age. The problem with the AGW theory is that it is wholly unsupported by historical evidence, and so relies on hand waving and the unsupported claim that somehow "this time it's different", when it simply isn't.
skylarscaling "That ignores the documented CO2 concentrations in history that were well above 400ppm during COOLING trends." No, it doesn't. The Sun used to be cooler. "The idea that the proportionally SMALL amount of CO2 humans are contributing is somehow tipping some delicate balance is not supported by ANY scientific evidence." The climatologists of the world beg to differ. And small amounts of highly active substances make a huge difference all the time. How much arsenic are you willing to have in your drinking water? "We've had higher CO2 concentrations NUMEROUS times in the history of the earth, and we've never experienced dangerous warming." Yes, we have. The Earth has been entirely ice-free many times. "A warmer planet is universally GOOD. It means more plant growth, more animal life, higher crop yields, and overall BETTER life on the planet." Not a word of that was true. "There is no scientific support for the idea that a warmer planet is somehow a bad thing." The analyses of the effects of climate change on the places humans are most populous again put the lie to this claim. "The most biologically diverse and successful periods in the history of the earth were warmer than today." Without humans. None of those environments supported humans. And, to play to your point, that means you have no historical justification for thinking any such changes would be good for us. "We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age." No. I'm not doing this. Pick one argument.
At the beginning of the video I was so confused. I was sure I clicked a MinuteEarth video, but the animation style didn't match up! So glad to see you guys do a project together! Both channels are so awesome and I encourage everyone to check out Kurz Gesagt! They make insanely good videos!
Philby Tan but they are purely simple physics, no maths involved, you already feel brain hurt after watching the videos, without even touching integration and differential equation??
In physics it is more important to understand and explain the concepts and the rest is "just math". If you can't put words on what is happening, you certainly can't do the math. In other words; math is the easy part of physics, it's like translating words into another language.
that measurement came from satellite with an accuracy of ± 0.5C The reason there was no ground based monitor station is partially due to the fact that Iran does not have the friendliest relations with the west, where most of this science is done due to the simple fact that we have most of the money, and it's partially due to the fact that it's hot as balls in that desert and nobody wants to even think about going near there.
"...compared to the last 800,000 years the [radiation pinball] game today is much much harder" Concisely scripted and seamlessly animated vid on one of the crucial components to arguments for the persistence of ACC. The case for CC is quite simple (if not undeniably so) and, glad to see another video which captures that simplicity without sacrificing the immediate urgency of the content. I look forward to seeing more and more bridges built in and amongst the EduVid community. Collaboration FTW!
Viktor6665 apparently, satellites recorded in 2005 ground temperatures of up to 70.7 °C in the Lut Desert, Iran. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3067.1
Arturo Gutierrez Ground temperature doesnt count as "highest temperature", only air temperature in the shade does. Even if it would count its still fake info, because the highest recorded ground temperature was 94°C in the Death Valley of California. I hate it when science shows are inaccurate.
Viktor6665 but if you think about it, it doesn't makes sense to compare ground temperature in the Moon vs air temperature on Earth. There's no equivalent data on the moon to use against the 56 °C you mention
Viktor6665 We need to compare like statistics. Surface temperature is all we have on the moon, so we compare with the surface temperature on Earth. We can't exactly measure the air temperature in the shade on the moon...
As soon as I started the video I instantly recognised the Kurs Gesagt style, didn't see this coming at all. Some of my favourite youtube science channels working together is a dream!
CO2 Physics: Absorbs terrestrial-emitted IR only in 15um absorption band. It appears this occurs in the first 10m to 100m from the surface of the earth. As such, all of the IR in this band is totally absorbed, or saturated, anyway, whether CO2 is 100, 200, 400, or 1000ppm. College physics. That means the heat retained in the atmosphere by CO2 is insensitive to its concentration in this scope. Ice core data provides indirect extrapolated info and temperature can most accurately be measured by thermometers or optical devices.
One small criticism. Like many other videos you imply that GHGs can 'hold' the energy. They really can't. They reemit the heat almost as fast as they absorb it BUT the direction of the radiation is random so about half of the emitted photons are directed back towards Earth, thus delaying their eventual release into space.
adir mugrabi madattak we do have a heat gradient that is (theoretically, in practice its a pain in the ass) sufficient to harness the excess ambient energy using the ocean as a heat sink and ammonia powered turbine. However adir mugrabi the amount of energy the earth traps is orders of magnitude larger than we could use and neutralize to solve global climate heat trapping problem. Just looking at skeptical science page would show you the problem of us getting between 15-30 kilotons of energy every second (hiroshima bombs) www.skepticalscience.com. using the smaller number we would quickly find that with 3.15569e7 seconds in a year* 15,000 (15 kilotons)* 4.184e9 joules in 1 ton of tnt gives us 1.98*10^21 joules of energy captured per year from excess co2. global energy consumption in 2012 was 3.75*10^20 joules. So theoretically we can consume within one order of magnitude of the thermo energy we trap every year if we produced all of our energy via thermal gradient power generation (ignoring other non conservative energy sinks during power generation). the problem is that is difficult with the technology, only works in the proper climates, and just isn't a particularly effect way of producing energy.
This is a great video! Can I just say that I think it would have driven the point home better if the radiation "pinball" were to go down between the paddles rather than up and away when the narration says "the game today is much, much harder." I know that radiation still escapes, just at a slower rate, but psychologically it would drive the point home that this game can be lost.
When I started watching the video, i thought it looked a lot like something Kurzgesagt would illustrate. Then I realized it was illustrated by them :P Two of my favorite science youtuber channel working together!!
What the heck. I already subscribed to both channels and I didn't realised it was a video by MinuteEarth until the endcard. Kurzgesagt macht eben tolle Sachen, da muss man zusammenarbeiten.
I experienced a flow of sheer pleasure the moment I heard Henry's voice over the kurzgesagt animations. Now it's time to let the video play and learn :)
I subbed and watch both channel regularly, and was just watching a kurzgesagt video before suggestion take me to this one. I was about to comment how i didn't notice until Henry mentioned it, then I saw all the comment saying otherwise. Oh peer pressure
Correction: Some high places in antarctica has a temperature down to -98C. 71C is the surface temperature of lut desert. The death valley surface temperature reaches a whopping 93.9C
I was watching the video, and i was like DAYUM THE ANIMATION GOT AN UPGRADE! Then i saw the end and found out they got some good assistance for the video.
I just cannot pay attention any longer to this vid unless I just blurt this out: AMAZING! The graphic animations, the music the quality of the narration and the sound of it is just made for me to pay attention even without realizing it, it just draws me in, guys You did a REAL FUCKIN' GOOD JOB!
The core assumption of the Green House hypothesis, namely that a free convective atmosphere could ‘trap’ radiant heat, has never been validated or demonstrated experimentally. Such a validation has been lacking for 190 years simply because heat-trapping by free gases is physically impossible in reality! The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition.
Great animation =D When you talked about the electrically charged particles to absorb radiation, i was actually expecting you would mention the Ionosphere
Why does the temperature rise before the CO2 increases? On your chart, the temperature increases and then a few years later the CO2 levels rise. The warm temps seem to cause the increase in CO2, not the other way around.
Thank you so much for having us MinuteEarth. It was so cool to work with people who really know what they are talking about - we never worked with a team that was so thorough about every single detail. The amount work and love to detail Minuteearth put in their videos is impressive. Definitely reflected on us.
Also, everyone who is looking for the Tardis: We forgot to put it in. Sorry.
***** you also worked pretty hard for this video, youre quality is usually really good but in this video is fantastic (I have the feeling animating molecules bouncing all over the place was really hard)
***** I thought the animation style was familiar
***** i read this mostly in the narrators voice
***** Thank You, I loved the animation!
instantly recognized Kurzgesagt's animation style. Great video, both of you!
Exactly. I was like, were is the "atoms don't look like this"
Yuro Lohe
Within the first second I was wondering why MinuteEarth stole Kurzgesagt's animation. Then I read the description. This is a great collaboration.
Yup... That did feel non-Minutey... And then came the pinball and the birds.. Then all was set
No duck?
sibtain ali There were ducks on this. BTW, Henry needs to learn German. He said Kurz Gesagt wrong and I learned that Henry's last name, Reich, means Kingdom in German. So German is a must learn for Henry!
"an unlivable -18C"
*Distant laughter from Oymyakon, Russia*
Behind TheWall writing from northern america.... yea poor them, i can't possibly imagine living in a world that's warmer than the average temperature
Well thars the average temperature I would like to see you survive 100 Celsius or -140
ipodtouchiscoollol He didn't say 100 or -140 is unlivable, he said -18 is unlivable. Which is silly, because Oymyakon has an average -31, proving that -18 is quite livable.
Because you can buy products from zones where you can live in on the moon that's pretty much impossible
Lie Damen there's inside farms. I'd suggest you research mirai farm
So you're saying 1% of atmospheric gas collects 90% of all our heat?!
#occupyatmosphere
trolltacular1 some gasses are better at this than others. some go real pro at absorbing heat.
trolltacular1 Water vapor is about 30 times better than CO2. CO2 doesn't trap hardly any heat. This is just a dumbed-down generalization for the public. The question posed by global warming hypothesists is: does the excess CO2 we've put into the atmosphere cause an increase in surface temperature which results in a runaway greenhouse affect? The CO2 is simply a trigger in this hypothesis which sets off a cascade of other things which results in the earth becoming warmed very rapidly.
Most people only know what they are told in public school and by the media: CO2 BAD! It is far more complicated. However, the divisiveness of the subject is quite simple. We now have zealots on either side of the issue which serve to sell books, get votes, or leverage businesses. The only people who have a handle on things are those who know what science really is. They are the ones who know this is simply a hypothesis and cannot really be tested for efficacy, thus leading to what is a true scientific theory (such as the theory of quantum mechanics). However, studying these ill-affects (or lack thereof) leads to a better understanding of our climate systems in general and even of our understanding of the earth itself. Just don't let politics ruin the fun of reading the research :)
Jon Hall
...it was just a joke, dude. I hope you didn't spend all that time writing that down, and that it's just copypasta.
trolltacular1 There are plenty of others who will benefit from reading it :)
Jon Hall Global warming is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it is perfectly clear that the excess CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere is causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
It feels so weird watching a kurzgesagt animation with a different person voicing it.
ikr!!!
most uncomftorable i've been on youtube
Yep.
yep. and now I know how to pronounce that without an English accent
You mean now you know how to say it with an american accent?
Kurz Gesagt's illustration and animation style is probably my favorite in RUclips's education channels, followed by some of Ted-ed's animators and MinuteEarth.
It's great to see two awesome channels working together.
Greenhouse gasses don't trap heat. They scatter it. That doesn't translate into heating anything.
The way he says "kurzgesagt" ... :D
Jack Sparrow you can't have it all at once, Captain!
Jack Sparrow Haha yeah! XD (Im German btw)
Jack Sparrow I think you lost your captain, captain.
***** Approximately like you'd pronounce "rike" in English
Jack Sparrow Apparently most English speakers can't pronounce 'z' for some reason.
Oh Kurzgesagt definitely animated this.
Unique animation style + sarcasm = kurz gesagt
Now I only need to find the Tardis...
By the time you can see the ducks, you can most assuredly tell its Kertzeg.... Yeah I can't spell it on mobile.
AndreLevin they forgot to put it in apparenntly
Mastersword234 It's "Kurz" for short and "Gesagt" for said. You can translate that to "In a nutshell", or "to put it simply" etc.
It's always fun to hear English speaking people pronouncing German words :D
Lol
pcfreak1992 and it's always painful the other way around ;) (german here)
pcfreak1992 Like "Deutschland!" from PewDiePie? :D
pcfreak1992 And Vice-versa
Unertragbar Especially "squirrel".
Looks like *the greenhouse effect is an adiabatic (pressure-induced) process* and therefore *does not depend on the composition of the atmosphere.* The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is thus *irrelevant* to the greenhouse effect, because its concentration in the atmosphere doesn't affect the intensity of such effect. Here's the DOI code of such scientific paper: *10.4172/2573-458X.1000112*
Kurzgesagt! Cool to see two of my favorite channels working together.
I have learned all of this over my 5 years of university, but this was a fantastic generalization for the general public.
Nolan Thiessen Really? You needed university education to learn basics of Global Warming?
Xqwzts Of course not. Like I said, this is a great generalization.
Xqwzts considering it's a university level education, he most definitely learned more than just the basics. Be real Xqwstz
***** since when was being condescending considered smart?
Xqwzts WUT U ONLY LRND THET IT WAS NITROGEN IN THE ETMOSPHERE DURING DE FURST 4 YARS OF UNIVASERTY?
Two of my favourite channels working together.
DAYM.
i can't watch the animation without kurzgesagt's voice!
Dresden I can
Nedserd I love that voice tho
I obviously knew what's Greenhouse effect but never knew green house effect worked because of this, thanks!
Holy crap this video looked great! :O Hope you keep making them like this because I absolutely loved the new look!
Dat Ty Kurzgesagt made the Video. If you like that type of Animation check out the Kurzgesagt Channel! They are both my Favourite Science channels!
Nuno Ferreira
Dat Ty Yeah the animation is great but don't expect it on any other videos for minute science, but I would be down for more collab between them
Dat Ty i do too, which is why i immediately subscribed to the guys that made it.
Before anyone mentions that the heat seems to be going ahead of CO2 release in the graph at 2:32, here's the explanation.
Yes, historically the start of warming precedes the rapid release of CO2 (giving it a 'head start', thus appearing to stay ahead of CO2 at all times). However, over 90% of warming occurs after CO2 begins being released in significant amounts. www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
Warming generally starts with Milankovitch cycles, which are variations in Earth's position in space, which alters the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth. When the cycles line up 'correctly', Earth starts to warm. This warming leads to warmer ocean temperatures, which lowers the solubility of CO2 in them, and melts permafrost, which releases GHGs from the frozen soils. That CO2 then builds up in the atmosphere, capturing more IR energy. This sets off a cycle of continued warming until another geologic circumstance reverses the cycle. The warming may start before the rapid release of GHGs, but without the GHGs there simply wouldn't be very much warming.
This is one of many ways that climatologists know our current warming climate isn't primarily caused by nature. There is no noticeable trigger in our records of the Milankovitch cycles which explains why the warming started.
Hey, Nolan. Could you check Scott Adams' posts about Climate Change and tell me what you think, if you ever have the time? Thanks.
Nolan Thiessen you should join vsause
Warming always precedes release of heat from any gas. Plancks Law. This is the case of earth's history of climate. Little Ice Age ends. Warming begins. CO2 follows.
CO2 doesn't capture any IR...it scatters it and it doesn't equate to heating the surface. Surface temperatures can be accurately predicted and backed up with NASA probe data which are independent of the atmospheric content just by using dimensional analysis and the ideal gas laws relating temperature and pressure. And the explanation doesn't violate thermodynamic laws as does climate theory and the flat earth model for the energy budget...with a cold sun no less. It's complete nonsense.
The love the animations doe by Kurz Gesagt i could watch them for ever
It's rare I comment on these videos, but I just wanna say those animations were a) really well done & un-intrusive and b) sold this video in such a fluid yet easily understood way. Well done on using all that Patreon funding so well guys/thanks for the videos!
Awesome vid as always, but yeah this animation is just great. Really hope you do more collaborations with them, the simple but effective animations coupled with your excellent explanations created a great learning experience.
YAHS KURZGESAGT + MINUTEEARTH = AWESOMENESS
OMG REALLY
Yay
It does rather miss the point of the shorter wavelength light passing more easily through the atmosphere, whereby it then strikes the ground, heating it, and then is radiated out at a long wavelength. This is then more fully absorbed, and reflected by the atmosphere.
Joshua Mcateer But shorter wavelength photons carry way less energy than longer wavelength ones, such as infrared.
No the short wavelengths are the most energetic. E=hv
For clarity, that was meant to be a nu, for frequency
Joshua Mcateer well to be fair to the the video is about "how do green house gasses work" not "how does the green house gas effect" work. i'd make a small argument those are slightly different videos. i do with they covered the entirety of the green house gas effect though. this was amazing physics i didn't know though
All of the magic in a Kurtz Gesagt video, with that amazing narrator we all know and love here
One evening, while living in the Rio Grande Valley and helping my father cover his citrus trees to help protect them against a freeze predicted for later that night, I found myself hoping and praying for heavy overcast to replace the current clear skies. We’d never heard of the greenhouse effect at that time, but we knew that a blanket of clouds (water vapor) would slow down the escape of Earth’s heat.
My dad had already flooded the ground around the trees and prepped his smudge pots to be lit at the appropriate moment (for the blanketing effect of carbon laden air).
As the thermometer continued to slowly but surely drop, we nervously sat listening to the reports on the radio. Then, just as temperatures neared freezing, a bank of clouds moved in over the region and the rate of temperature decrease slowed and stopped at 30 degrees (F.). An hour later, the sun peeked over the horizon and very slowly the temperature began to rise. Damage to the fruit and trees was avoided without having lit the smudge pots.
My point is that even though some people may not believe in the greenhouse effect, they’re almost certainly not citrus growers.
Search:
smudge pots infrared radiation
Sam Lair What the hell are you on about
This I wanted to say; the sound design, the illustration, the narration... Everything in this video is made sublime. It balances out perfectly.
Two of my favourite channels working together. Next is for you guys to work with sci-show or PBS Spacetime :D
or its okay to be smart
Yup, I like that one as well.
am i the only one who checked if he was a kurzgesagt video after seeing the animation
*T O T A L L Y*
Totally not!
I was really confused for a minute when I heard Henry start talking, I definitely thought this was a Kurzgesagt video!
The atmosphere - Shield by day, blanket by night
When i first saw this video, i felt weird because i know minuteearth don’t do kurgesagt animations. But after i watched this video, i knew kurgesagt animated this and minuteearth talk
Pretty close, except the ice record shows the opposite relationship. CO2 changes don't cause large changes in temperature, temperature changes cause increases in atmospheric CO2. That's why the data shows temperature changes leading CO2 changes by around 800 years, and temperatures begin cooling off while CO2 concentrations are still at local maximums.
Other than that, great video!
skylarscaling It's a bit more complicated that that. Relatively small changes in temperature can cause CO2 concentrations to increase (mainly because a warmer ocean can't hold as much dissolved CO2), and then the increased CO2 leads to the large temperature changes. So if something happens to directly increase the CO2 concentrations, say by combusting a bunch of carbon that used to be trapped in coal and oil, you'd still see the temperatures rise.
Matthew Prorok This is the "feedback" theory of CO2 driven warming, but sadly that is disproved by the historical record. Global temperature begins to DECREASE with atmospheric CO2 at local maximum levels.
Yes, CO2 contributes to warming effects, but the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as the net effect of CO2 relative to the much more common water vapor are much more important. That's why you see this lagging effect of CO2 behind temperature, because it is not driving temperature, it is responding to it, exactly as you explained (as well as increases in plant growth and animal abundance, which also increase natural CO2 output).
skylarscaling Historically, yes. Because historically, you didn't have CO2 being directly placed into the atmosphere in large quantities. CO2 is not itself temperature dependent; it doesn't care if the air is warm or cold, it doesn't condense out at temperatures we experience on Earth. The primary sources of atmospheric CO2, other than human activity, do vary with temperature.
Yes, historically, temperatures begin to decrease before CO2 levels; they have to, because just as warming oceans release the gas, cooling oceans can dissolve more of it. And unless there's a massive plant bloom that captures a ludicrous amount of carbon (as happened with the aptly named Carboniferous period), there's not really anywhere else for it to go. But that doesn't mean the CO2 is responding to the temperature; the change is in the properties of the water, not the CO2.
What makes CO2 the control knob on the climate is that it's easy to change. Water is too temperature dependent; it can amplify warming, but can't cause it. The Sun can spark either warming or cooling, depending on what it does, and is the typical source of climatic shifts, but it's relatively stable, and nothing that happens on Earth is going to affect it. Huge changes in living things, such as the Great Oxygen Catastrophe or the Carboniferous or the Azolla event, can do the trick, but that's BECAUSE they affect the concentrations of atmospheric CO2, not because they directly change the planet's energy budget.
At the moment, the huge thing going on with living things is humans. And what we're doing is increasing CO2 concentrations.
Matthew Prorok That ignores the documented CO2 concentrations in history that were well above 400ppm during COOLING trends. The idea that the proportionally SMALL amount of CO2 humans are contributing is somehow tipping some delicate balance is not supported by ANY scientific evidence. We've had higher CO2 concentrations NUMEROUS times in the history of the earth, and we've never experienced dangerous warming.
Furthermore, this completely ignores the effectual side of warming. A warmer planet is universally GOOD. It means more plant growth, more animal life, higher crop yields, and overall BETTER life on the planet. There is no scientific support for the idea that a warmer planet is somehow a bad thing. The most biologically diverse and successful periods in the history of the earth were warmer than today. We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
The problem with the AGW theory is that it is wholly unsupported by historical evidence, and so relies on hand waving and the unsupported claim that somehow "this time it's different", when it simply isn't.
skylarscaling "That ignores the documented CO2 concentrations in history that were well above 400ppm during COOLING trends."
No, it doesn't. The Sun used to be cooler.
"The idea that the proportionally SMALL amount of CO2 humans are contributing is somehow tipping some delicate balance is not supported by ANY scientific evidence."
The climatologists of the world beg to differ. And small amounts of highly active substances make a huge difference all the time. How much arsenic are you willing to have in your drinking water?
"We've had higher CO2 concentrations NUMEROUS times in the history of the earth, and we've never experienced dangerous warming."
Yes, we have. The Earth has been entirely ice-free many times.
"A warmer planet is universally GOOD. It means more plant growth, more animal life, higher crop yields, and overall BETTER life on the planet."
Not a word of that was true.
"There is no scientific support for the idea that a warmer planet is somehow a bad thing."
The analyses of the effects of climate change on the places humans are most populous again put the lie to this claim.
"The most biologically diverse and successful periods in the history of the earth were warmer than today."
Without humans. None of those environments supported humans. And, to play to your point, that means you have no historical justification for thinking any such changes would be good for us.
"We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age."
No. I'm not doing this. Pick one argument.
great animations! :)
sinephase HAHAHAH YES!!!
Immediately knew who animated it when i saw the bubble animation thingy
I knew it when it showed the earth
At the beginning of the video I was so confused. I was sure I clicked a MinuteEarth video, but the animation style didn't match up! So glad to see you guys do a project together! Both channels are so awesome and I encourage everyone to check out Kurz Gesagt! They make insanely good videos!
I was just thinking how similar these animations looked to Kurz Gesagt... had to double check who's channel I was on. Loved this collaboration!
I needed to check what channel i was watching in because of the kurzgesagt visuals but Henry in the audio...
for a second i thought i clicked on a kurzgesagt video until i head henry's voice
I always woundered why C02 is so significant for Earth's climate. Thanks for this great explanation.
BTW LOL "körsgesäägt"
omg I love you guys you actually used Celcius for your temperature measurements! Awesome work too!
Kurzgesagt has the best animation style on the internet, hands down.
kurzgesagt :D :D
Kinda funny when a englisch man tries to speak a german word :D
Weisswoscht i'm english and i sound like a helicopter trying to pronounce your name :D
Connor V
Cause its written in a heavy bavarian accent probably ^^.
The actual word is "Weißwurst"
MagnificentXXBastard ah ok, I did German when I was at school, that means white sausage, correct?!
Connor V correct, but it's probably better known as veal sausage
Connor V Yes it is, and it tastes awesome :3
I watch so many science vids my brain hurts !! Kurgesagt..Life Noggin.. MinuteEarth.. PlanetDolan (Facts)..Vertasium....and moreeeeee !!
Philby Tan but they are purely simple physics, no maths involved, you already feel brain hurt after watching the videos, without even touching integration and differential equation??
In physics it is more important to understand and explain the concepts and the rest is "just math". If you can't put words on what is happening, you certainly can't do the math. In other words; math is the easy part of physics, it's like translating words into another language.
also scishow. It was both exciting and painful when I found out about their crashcourse channel. NEED TO WATCH ALL OF EM!!!
0:19 the hottest temperature on Earth is not 71ºC is much less!
+Explora Tu Mundo The hottest temperature on earth is indeed 71C, as recorded in دشت لوت
+Ja-Shwa Cardell That recording could not be verified.
that measurement came from satellite with an accuracy of ± 0.5C
The reason there was no ground based monitor station is partially due to the fact that Iran does not have the friendliest relations with the west, where most of this science is done due to the simple fact that we have most of the money, and it's partially due to the fact that it's hot as balls in that desert and nobody wants to even think about going near there.
But they always say the hottest temp was in death valley USA.
***** that's not true, the hottest temperature recorded on earth is 56,7ºC in the Death Valley, 1913.
**Sees Kurzgesagt’s animation. Instantly googles with tears in eyes.
End up knowing it’s a collaboration.
Great video anyways!!
"...compared to the last 800,000 years the [radiation pinball] game today is much much harder"
Concisely scripted and seamlessly animated vid on one of the crucial components to arguments for the persistence of ACC. The case for CC is quite simple (if not undeniably so) and, glad to see another video which captures that simplicity without sacrificing the immediate urgency of the content.
I look forward to seeing more and more bridges built in and amongst the EduVid community. Collaboration FTW!
The highest temperature ever recorded was 56°C not 71°C.
Viktor6665 no no no. it was my temperature that they recorded thats why it was so hot
Viktor6665 apparently, satellites recorded in 2005 ground temperatures of up to 70.7 °C in the Lut Desert, Iran.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3067.1
Arturo Gutierrez Ground temperature doesnt count as "highest temperature", only air temperature in the shade does.
Even if it would count its still fake info, because the highest recorded ground temperature was 94°C in the Death Valley of California. I hate it when science shows are inaccurate.
Viktor6665 but if you think about it, it doesn't makes sense to compare ground temperature in the Moon vs air temperature on Earth. There's no equivalent data on the moon to use against the 56 °C you mention
Viktor6665 We need to compare like statistics. Surface temperature is all we have on the moon, so we compare with the surface temperature on Earth. We can't exactly measure the air temperature in the shade on the moon...
Who comes here because of Kurzgesagt?
who comes here for both?
Me!
Me (so true)
Why do living things try to stay living?
***** If they didn't, they wouldn't be alive.
***** Because all living things that don't try to stay living died off a long time ago.
***** Because all living things that don't try to stay living died off a long time ago.
***** Viruses do not count as life.
***** I suppose it's just semantics.
Two seconds in and I recognized Kurz Gesagt's animation. Good to see them together!
Sooooo... Minute earth and kurzgesagt started out the same, but diverted into their own styles. Awesome!
i hear the guy from life noggin...
wut?
Yeah, he kinda sounds like blocko
Trump needs this
Hi everyone, Jesus loves you!
no he doesn’t
Different beleifs, @@wasp795
Im hindu jai shree ram
Say wallah
As soon as I started the video I instantly recognised the Kurs Gesagt style, didn't see this coming at all. Some of my favourite youtube science channels working together is a dream!
I've watched so many kurzgesagt videos that I didn't notice that it wasn't the standard pencil drawing style.
This overly simplified presentation is a lie.
CO2 Physics: Absorbs terrestrial-emitted IR only in 15um absorption band. It appears this occurs in the first 10m to 100m from the surface of the earth. As such, all of the IR in this band is totally absorbed, or saturated, anyway, whether CO2 is 100, 200, 400, or 1000ppm. College physics. That means the heat retained in the atmosphere by CO2 is insensitive to its concentration in this scope.
Ice core data provides indirect extrapolated info and temperature can most accurately be measured by thermometers or optical devices.
You have ignorant drivel.
Best video in a while. Suggestion box entry: literally anything about quantum physics
Birds are the key of knowing if an animation was made by kurzgesagt
An excellent explanation for the layman of the mechanism of absorption of electromagnetic radiation by atmospheric gases. Brilliant work. Thank you.
I love the collaboration between ***** and MinuteEarth. Both of these are wonderful channels!
One small criticism. Like many other videos you imply that GHGs can 'hold' the energy. They really can't. They reemit the heat almost as fast as they absorb it BUT the direction of the radiation is random so about half of the emitted photons are directed back towards Earth, thus delaying their eventual release into space.
The best detailed explanation on YT so far
This is minute earths best video in my opinion. Very good! Thank you
what we need to do, is not to get rid of the heat. BUT to learn how to use it!
energy is energy and should have a way to use it
Sure we can. We have a heat sink known as space to radiate heat into. Its easy to generate useable enrgy from heat gradients.
madattak "currently known"
madattak I believe that they will find a way
adir mugrabi madattak we do have a heat gradient that is (theoretically, in practice its a pain in the ass) sufficient to harness the excess ambient energy using the ocean as a heat sink and ammonia powered turbine. However adir mugrabi the amount of energy the earth traps is orders of magnitude larger than we could use and neutralize to solve global climate heat trapping problem. Just looking at skeptical science page would show you the problem of us getting between 15-30 kilotons of energy every second (hiroshima bombs) www.skepticalscience.com.
using the smaller number we would quickly find that with 3.15569e7 seconds in a year* 15,000 (15 kilotons)* 4.184e9 joules in 1 ton of tnt gives us 1.98*10^21 joules of energy captured per year from excess co2. global energy consumption in 2012 was 3.75*10^20 joules. So theoretically we can consume within one order of magnitude of the thermo energy we trap every year if we produced all of our energy via thermal gradient power generation (ignoring other non conservative energy sinks during power generation). the problem is that is difficult with the technology, only works in the proper climates, and just isn't a particularly effect way of producing energy.
It is nice to see the evolution of the illustrations.
In three minutes, +Serlok Brixe learned more about the atmosphere than in all atmospheric units of elementary school science class.
Mr. Gesagt has a really great ability to illustrate!
This is a great video! Can I just say that I think it would have driven the point home better if the radiation "pinball" were to go down between the paddles rather than up and away when the narration says "the game today is much, much harder." I know that radiation still escapes, just at a slower rate, but psychologically it would drive the point home that this game can be lost.
When I started watching the video, i thought it looked a lot like something Kurzgesagt would illustrate. Then I realized it was illustrated by them :P Two of my favorite science youtuber channel working together!!
What the heck. I already subscribed to both channels and I didn't realised it was a video by MinuteEarth until the endcard.
Kurzgesagt macht eben tolle Sachen, da muss man zusammenarbeiten.
Nice! MinuteEarth and ***** together!!! Two of my favorite channels!!!
My favourite (science) RUclips channels: #1: Kurzgesagt #2 Minute earth #3 life noggin.
I experienced a flow of sheer pleasure the moment I heard Henry's voice over the kurzgesagt animations. Now it's time to let the video play and learn :)
I subbed and watch both channel regularly, and was just watching a kurzgesagt video before suggestion take me to this one. I was about to comment how i didn't notice until Henry mentioned it, then I saw all the comment saying otherwise.
Oh peer pressure
i was freaking out the second i saw kurz gesagt type of video. and then i read the description. woots! i like you both!!
Kurz Gesagt + Minute Earth = Beautiful science videos
i watched this video just because i like your video editing so much.
Two of my favorite science channels working together. My life is complete.
Wow two of the best science channels combined!
I was like "wait, I know this style of animation"...
Thanks to Kurz Gesagt for illustrating this video!
AHHHH...
I KNEW I RECOGNIZED THAT AMAZINGLY ILLUSTRATED ANIMATION FROM SOMEWHERE! Awesome!
That was a great whimsical presentation.
These animations were much better than the old ones
Beautiful video. Look forward to the next collaboration.
Correction: Some high places in antarctica has a temperature down to -98C. 71C is the surface temperature of lut desert. The death valley surface temperature reaches a whopping 93.9C
I do like the hand drawn pictures in the usual videos, buy I indeed enjoyed today's animations. Great fun watching & understanding.
I was watching the video, and i was like DAYUM THE ANIMATION GOT AN UPGRADE! Then i saw the end and found out they got some good assistance for the video.
I love Kurz his animation style so incredibly much.
I just cannot pay attention any longer to this vid unless I just blurt this out: AMAZING! The graphic animations, the music the quality of the narration and the sound of it is just made for me to pay attention even without realizing it, it just draws me in, guys You did a REAL FUCKIN' GOOD JOB!
I love kerzgasaght. I really like the way how they teach, it just makes life easier...
I love the jiggle of the Ozone molecule. It looks like it'd be such fun at parties!
Kurzgesagt you are back thank you 😊 to posts all those videos:)
Thank you minute earth and kurz gesagt for both making such high quality informative videos!
The core assumption of the Green House hypothesis, namely that a free convective atmosphere could ‘trap’ radiant heat, has never been validated or demonstrated experimentally. Such a validation has been lacking for 190 years simply because heat-trapping by free gases is physically impossible in reality! The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed,
but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition.
I recognized Kurz Gesagt art style from the thumbnail. nicely done.
It's so weird to hear minute earth but to see kurzgesagt
Great animation =D
When you talked about the electrically charged particles to absorb radiation, i was actually expecting you would mention the Ionosphere
Why does the temperature rise before the CO2 increases? On your chart, the temperature increases and then a few years later the CO2 levels rise. The warm temps seem to cause the increase in CO2, not the other way around.
The animation is pretty nice and I find it very funny.