I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here's How It Works.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ค. 2024
- 🌎 Get our exclusive NordVPN deal here ➡️ NordVPN.com/sabine It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart.
How does the greenhouse effect work? Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, prevent infrared radiation from escaping to outer space. This warms the surface of earth. More greenhouse gas means more warming. Simple enough! Alas, if you look at the numbers, it turns out that most infrared radiation is absorbed almost immediately above the ground already at pre-industrial greenhouse gas levels. So how does it really work? In this video, I try to sort it out.
👉 Transcript and References on Patreon ➜ / sabine
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
📖 Check out my new book "Existential Physics" ➜ existentialphysics.com/
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
00:00 Intro
00:40 The Greenhouse Effect: Middle School Version
03:17 The Greenhouse Effect: High School Version
10:33 The Greenhouse Effect: PhD Version
14:30 Stratospheric Cooling
16:24 Summary
18:14 Protect Your Privacy With NordVPN
#science #climate - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
We have an infographic to go with the video that you can download here: www.dropbox.com/s/mhlu3b8f53pjz9t/Infographic%20Greenhouse%20Gases.jpg?dl=0
Shouldn't middle depiction (#2) indicate red band of hotness near surface (where it matters most to plants and aminals)?
I'm just happy to have great greenhouse tomatoes in winter! 😋YUM! Vielen dank Sabine!
@@arnswine It would have been too difficult to depict the difference to the final picture, so we dropped that.
TOO "dumbed down" if you want "rational" people to believe you!
Past climate has seen CO2 levels at 6000ppm so did humans cause those levels?? Plants die below 120ppm....think about that. But don't worry I don't want you to wiggle about losing your monetisation.
When I first went to college I wanted to educate myself on climate change. I took a course on environmental science hoping to get a better understanding. Unfortunately I didn't realize the course was a sociology course, so we didn't actually learn anything about climate change or the environment. Instead it was about people's perception of the topics. An environmental economics course I took a couple years later was actually very good and useful, but still never really got a good understanding of the principles behind climate change. It is amazing how for such an important topic most of the conversation about it seems to not actually revolve around what it is.
I had a similar issue, but my course was 100% energy management (dams, solar, etc vs needs over time and in different places). 😂
In the Montana College in Missoula, the effects of Greenhouse Gas emissions are taught by a pretty good Common Sense Educator.
Steve Running has received recognition for his efforts to understand one of the most prominent polluters in the Western US, at a small town called Coalstrip.
We may be fortunate to discuss local effects of economic demands on facts that are presented by internet websites, but facts do matter, and we all need to look at all of the effects that money can buy?
Similar to the dialogue around corona..
Yeah you could have saved yourself a lot of time and money by watching a 20 minute video that just agreed with your prejudices.
If your school's environmental economics was anything like mine, you can completely disregard it. Carbon credits, cap and trade, all these things are utterly ineffective. There's only one solution, seizing all private petroleum assets and shutting them down.
I usually understand things easily when Sabine explains. Not this time, though. I will have to watch it once more.
I'm with you. This is really difficult.
Well, unfortunately it's still not right. That's just not really how a greenhouse works. Greenhouses work by preventing conduction/mixing of the warmed air with the cooler air above it.
Let's try... Greenhouse effect works in a building with roof and sides made of glass. Beware of False Analogies.
i normally have to Sabines videos several times to get a thorough understanding.
please don’t feel alone
@@dsp3ncr1 Let me make sure I get this right: Your point is only that the metaphor doesn't exactly fit, not that any part of the actual explanation is wrong, is it?
the pressure of the atmosphere doesn't decrease with height due to the inverse square law of gravity being weaker. The difference in gravitational acceleration is negligable from the surface to 100km high which is where space begins. The pressure decreases because is given by the weight of the column of air above and as you move towards space that columns is less and less massive.
Same reason pressure increases with water depth, yes?
I noticed that error, too
Isn't energy moving thru the atmosphere via convection vs radiation at least until it reaches the higher elevation where the air is scarce?
@@miked5106It is both radiation and convection yes. But another major effect is atmospheric heat piping by water vapor.
Look up a heat pipe and how it functions. Now realize that water has a high heat of vaporization and condensation. Note the fact water vapor is lighter than air and convects upward, plus is a infrared absorbtive and radiative gas. These properties cause the water cycle to act as a natural heat pipe.
Water evaporates at the surface, capturing the heat of vaporation at low elevation. That latent heat of vaporization cannot be lost by radiation back to the surface unless it condenses. The water vapor can then also warm radiatively by absorbing more infrared heat from the surface, or warm CO2 in the atmosphere.
High humidity air being lighter than dry air it rises. Rising above a significant amount of CO2 which is denser than air so stays relatively lower. At cloud height it cools to the point it condenses, releasing its enormous load of latent heat of condensation, and radiates above most CO2. The cold rain falls back to earth cooling the surface. The cloud also reflects incoming solar radiation.
Every raindrop represents a net cooling done by this natural heat pipe. Heat had to have radiated to space for it to condense and fall back.
@@SimonFrack I'd say that is correct.
Thank you for the excellent explanation. I would like to offer what I believe is one small correction. The reduction of static pressure in the atmosphere at increasing height is due to the fact that as altitude increases, the air is supporting the weight of less air mass above. Even without the inverse r-squared variation of gravity, the pressure in the air must decrease with increasing altitude.
Thank you to Sabine for the excellent video and to David for the small correction.
The decrease of gravity within the relevant parts of the atmosphere, which has a "thickness" of about 100 km, is also quite small, as these ~ 100 km are not much compared to the radius of earth (slightly more than 6350 km).
To summarize in a humorous way: Even a flat earth would have an atmosphere that becomes less dense and colder at higher altitudes. At least as long as we don't think too much about what happens to the atmosphere near the edge of the disc.
That being said, the (nearly) spherical shape of the earth is still important for the greenhouse effect.
The distinction David (and many others below) seems to be making is between direct gravitational "pull" on molecules and cumulative "pull" - the latter emerging as pressure increasing with depth. Both are due to gravity.
I really liked this episode, however, I think the explanation at 6:45 - 7:15 of why the roundness of earth and the inverse square law for gravitiy were relevant and why the pressure decreased with the height above the earth is totally incorrect. The pressure doesn't decrease due to the decreasing gravitational pull. In fact, the latter almost stays constant in that area. What changes, is the remaining amount of air above you that has a weight and thus exerts pressure on you. The same principle applies in water. You observe a higher water pressure at the ground of a swimming pool than at its surface. Again, that is not due to a higher gravitational pull, but due to a higher amount of water above you.
Thant also works on flat surfuces, no balls needed thank you.
And what exactly causes the air above you to get pushed down on you if not gravity?
@@starstenaal527 and what.....gravity does not work on a flat surfaces, or are you going to give me earth magnetic core bullshit, have you been to the earth core.....no.....so...do don't tell me what is there underneath the so called core, because you don't know either....
@@starstenaal527Gravity indeed causes air pressure in that gravity gives air weight; but it is NOT the decrease in gravity with altitude that causes the decrease in air pressure with altitude. The reason for that is much simpler: the higher you go in the atmosphere, there will a lesser weight of air above you pushing down.
@@revanwallaceAgreed.
I'm a PhD Physicist who teaches general education climate science (when I don't have to teach the physics curriculum). This is an outstanding and clear presentation of how the greenhouse effect actually works (which I didn't fully appreciate for the first too many years I taught the class). The way you propose to modify the energy flow diagrams is spot on. Definitely some of your best work. Brava, and thank you for doing this. Heck, gonna show it in my class...
I would like to know the worst case scenario: What if we burn all those fossil fuel? From the science point of view there were period of time on Earth when all that fossils plants were alive on planet surface (before there were buried underground and fossilization process started). Lets put aside the process how those plants were buried - that catastrophic event (wipe out and buried Earth surface) is much more dangerous for humanity than climate change itself.
- How high air temperature were?
- How much would human civilization needed to adopt for that worst case?
- And the most important one, how many centuries it would take to get the worst case if we continue in fossil fuel burn (including growth of population)
I assume there would be no ice caps and Earth. Rising ocean levels is easy to handle as housing building speed (area per year) is much higher than area taken by ocean per year. Also with that high CO2 concentration whole planet would be incredibly green and food rich.
@@arm-power It is the massive changes that would be required from human population and governments to accommodate the environmental climate movements that would kill us. We can easily live on a 'warmer' planet Earth - but in different places on Earth. It's getting through the climate wars that will be the problem. We are in one of them now.
Will be good also to tell your students that that CO2 is not stopping the heat, but is re-emitting the heat in all directions. That means that CO2 also stops the heat coming from the Sun. Also, any warming will increase dramatically the water evaporation of the oceans, and the white cloud cover will block and reflect back most of the incoming sunlight.
Can you explain why "the ditch" gets wider with altitude when more CO2 is added.
but it is a terrible presentation when it attempts to pass judgment on climate change. the woman appears to be unaware the clouds are made of water vapor and have high albedo. she also seems to be unaware of ocean heat transport, solar-induced destruction of polar ozone, etc.
Danke Sabine!!
I'm studying environmental science (second degree and just for love of the subject).
You explanation was awesome. I'm surely also checking out the book, even if it's borrowed from the library at the CWI
Good luck with the brain washing, you have the head for it. No trust is what you can see with your own eyes and the inability to think for yourself. All admirable qualities sought in our educational system. Well done.
your being taught bullshit and lies
That was an outstanding explanation! Thank you for not trying to simplify everything to the point at which your explanations become incorrect. I have been trying to understand how to correctly explain the warming effect of certain gases for many years and I have NEVER heard anyone explain the “altitude” issue like you did. Also, I really appreciate the explanation of stratospheric cooling and why that prediction supports the human-caused climate change story. There is quite a bit of good science content on TH-cam these days, but your channel is among a very small number of really great ones!
See the follow up in "Who Broke the Greenhouse?" soon. The stratosphere CO2 is even less than the near 0 effect of CO2 below 10,000'.
@@buddymccloskey2809 You typed drivel.
@@grindupBaker Very impressive argument. Dummass.
I’m more afraid of gravity change. Since the widespread availability of backyard trampolines started in the late 60s the earth’s rotation has slowly been knocked out of kilter. It is now becoming critical, countless billions are being spent of so called ‘climate change” yet this more pressing pending disaster is largely ignored. I can solve this problem once and for all using strategically placed counter weights on springs at strategic gravity hotspots ( namely my backyard) and I can do all this for a cool 2.5 billion dollars. Don’t wait for the world to end with us all either shooting off into space of being crushed into the ground. Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute”. We are also hiring the services of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny to solve Climate Change. Santa is going to fly his slay around during his off season and the Easter Bunny will accompany him sprinkling the clouds with left over chocolate which has been finely powdered. This will stain the clouds brown and block the sun ending the dreaded warming that we are assured will one day cause sea levels to rise somehow. This can be done for the bargain price of 1.25 billion ! So what are you waiting for Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute” NOW or they may be no tomorrow !
@@oliverheaviside2539 : He's not wrong.
I didn't realize that this subject is so complicated, i almost took a break and went back to watching quantum mechanic videos to clear my mind a little, thank you for the enlightening explanation.
At best, it's really saying is CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing without saying that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. There's a slight cooling effect, apparently, because CO2 emits infrared efficiently is sparse atmospheres, I guess... I guess carbon dioxide doesn't act like an ideal black body. And this cooling effect is observed in one model from 1968, so all the models must be correct.
@kayakMike1000 "this cooling effect is observed in one model" S.B. "this cooling effect is measured by instruments on satellites since 1964".
Yeah, me too lol, and i did these subjects at Uni, but my brain still hurts
If you think quantum mechanics is simpler than this, I would question your grasp of quantum mechanics, or your relative time spent thinking and learning about each of the two subjects, at least. There IS NO understanding of a lot of quantum mechanics. A lot of it is just a bunch of hand waving.
There's a quote Feynman supposedly made that went something like: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't, which is basically what I said, though his is much more concise, and he was a leader the field in some aspects, those crazy diagrams, where I am mostly clueless. I just remember all the "A miracle occurs here" when I was learning about it in an introductory course as the core for an engineering degree, and that hand waving occurred a lot more than once, IIRC.
Or was that a joke? If so, good one. :-) I saw quantum well FLIR detectors and the like, but I can tell you for a fact that if I were the only one trying to develop them, they wouldn't exist.
@@grindupBaker jokes on you duder, the poles have a tremendous amount of hot air in the stratosphere and there's colder than expected air in the tropical troposphere. Could it be that there are cycles?
Air pressure doesn’t decrease with altitude because the gravitational force decreases, in a uniform gravitational field the air pressure would also decrease, and the gravitational force in LEO is pretty similar to that on the surface. It decreases because the mass of air above that point is lower.
So the gravitational force is uniform across any distance ? The weight of the air mass isn't created by gravity and its distance ? I can picture pressure decreasing as the air gets thinner above it , but I thought that was the effect of gravity and distance .
She corrects this in the description
Correct, Sabine corrected this in the description: "Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart. "
If that was true, then pressure would increase with the depth of the oceans, - oh, wait, it does!
nope. the air molecules just have a velocity distribution at a given temperature. the kinetic energy of the molecules is what makes the atmosphere "terminate" at certain altitude - there are just not enough molecules to go any higher. remember classical gas is mostly Boltzmann distributed, means there are exponentially less molecules with higher and higher energy. thats also the reason why the air is getting exponentially thinner if you go to higher altitudes
Stratospheric Cooling. That is the net proof that I didn't know before.
Absolutely and I've been pointing that out for 8 years, but it's hard to argue against the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere anyway when it's (Earth's radiation to space) been actually measured continuously by satellite instrument since 1964 (IRIS-A on Nimbus 1) and is clearly seen in the sample FTIRS over the Internet the last couple of decades including GooglesTubes videos such as:
=== at 16:35 at th-cam.com/video/v2nhssPW77I/w-d-xo.html and 20:31 (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica)
=== at 18:08 at th-cam.com/video/Oog7-KOtpEA/w-d-xo.html (4 FTIR samples for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq)
=== at 30:55 at th-cam.com/video/s-ab-ZNXnZ8/w-d-xo.html (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica again)
=== at 20:09 at th-cam.com/video/rgP-lwf2tb8/w-d-xo.html (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica again) and for this one at 22:09 to 22:34 hear Professor William van Wijngaarden of York University Toronto who did the study with William Happer explain clearly why the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere works backwards and COOLS THE SURFACE of Antarctica in winter (but only Antarctica and only in winter) for the same reason "greenhouse effect" cools the stratosphere.
=== at 2:37 at th-cam.com/video/NNgMyDRWWrA/w-d-xo.html for 63,000 locations around Earth (grid pixels) measured presumably hundreds or thousands of times at each place from space (averaged) both the radiation both the radiation power emitted to space, after being filtered through the "greenhouse effect" and also the surface temperature below that radiation, so it's a fairly accurate measure of how much warming, or COOLING, effect there is at all locations around Earth due to "greenhouse effect", which COOLS when surface is below -45 degrees, as shown, and warms when surface is above -45 degrees, with the warming effect getting stronger as the surface gets warmer. Interesting science stuff. IMPORTANT: This green hash-plot is only for when there were NO CLOUDS IN THE SKY so that it gets the effects or the IR-active gases only and doesn't get interfered with by clouds, which have their own often extremely-powerful version of the "greenhouse effect" (they keep winter nights much warmer than with a clear sky, often dramatically so).
I had to really focus but I was very impressed. Thank you for taking the time to pass on🎉 the information
Bob L.
Sadly it's even more complicated than that. The greenhouse effect causes less than 50% of the warming effect predicted from increasing CO2, with the remainder being caused by climate feedback effects: There are a huge number of climate feedbacks, but a simple example of a "positive feedback" is that white snow reflects sunlight, but once it's melted by a warming environment, then more sunlight will be absorbed by the ground, and so the temperature will increase further (so causing even more snow to be melted, etc). An example of a "negative feedback" is that as temperature increases, there is more evaporation from the ocean, which causes more clouds to form in the lower atmosphere, reflecting more sunlight into outer space, so reducing temperature. Unfortunately these feedback effects are often not understood very well (as they are often hard to measure), hence the large variation in predictions made by different climate models (and so why the IPCC prefers to average over a large number of models). In the distant past there was probably a period known as the Snowball Earth where most(*) of the surface was covered in ice (reflecting sunlight into space) from a massive ice age, and without volcanism producing CO2 the Earth might still have been like that today. (* I have simplified to avoid writing too much.)
The feedbacks are clearly negative. Systems with positive feedbacks are unstable, so if it could it would have already, and we’d have been in runaway global warming for billions of years. Unfortunately Sabine is missing the big picture.
@@bluebristolian Climate scientists use "positive feedback" in a slightly different sense to how electronics engineers (and possibly others) use it. When they say "positive feedback" they mean that the loop gain is > 0 but < 1, and so is still basically stable (but may have oscillations that will die out). You can think of a CO2-induced temperature gain of (say) 0.8C, producing 0.4C further increase from positive feedback, which then produces 0.2C of further increase from positive feedback (on itself!), which then produces 0.1C of further increase, etc. In this simple case the overall gain would be end-up as 1.6C, thus doubling the original CO2-induced temperature change. The real climate is of course rather more complicated, with different feedbacks operating on vastly different time scales.
It seems my follow-up post has been auto-blocked by TH-cam, possibly due to me including links for reference. What I basically said is that the sum of positive+negative feedbacks is known as "climate sensitivity". The IPCC's best estimate of climate sensitivity is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C. But without ANY feedbacks (i.e. just the physics mentioned in this video) CO2 would only increase temperature by about 1C (this is a non-controversial statement!). Thus CO2's physically direct contribution is only 1/2.5 to 1/4 of the total warming effect (i.e. 40% to 25%).
Sorry, I don't use either of those apps, but anyway I'm just a science nerd with a passing interest in climate science 🙂
Well, I’m no scientist either, but I can read; so with trepidation… There’s still a missing feature, which is the fact that evapotranspiration + convection is responsible for carrying away a large fraction of surface heat as the latent heat of evaporation. At the cold trap, water condenses (OK, I know that this is complicated by the need for condensation nuclei) and the heat is radiated away into space. It’s the reason we are not, and will never be, at rusk of runaway global warming. The big question, which I can’t see clearly covered in the IPCC science sections, is how this is affected by changes in surface temperature. You’d naively expect a strong negative feedback. But (witness Sabine’s presentation and your own reply) nobody seems to be talking about it one way or the other.
Everything's always so much more complicated than it seems 😭
That’s the thing with chaotic systems. Complicated and very hard to model. This is the problem with the narrative and how they are using it. There are plenty of things we can do to increase the efficiency of the consumption but we are tackling things we want to not the things that will make a real difference. For example aerogel insulation is about twice as good as PIR insulation but we are not subsidising it and ensuring it’s used in construction. It’s postulated that you could heat a house insulated with aerogel with a candle.
@@davideyres955 “the narrative” and “how they are using it”. Sigh.
@@toungewizzard6994
The video specifically shows why the greenhouse effect doesn't happen because of the Sun: it just provides the energy.
Hey you think you understand something in science you probably don't
Only for simpletons
Chapeau!!!! You are the best, in so many levels you are the best,no doubt, is a privilege to have you. Thank you.
The first time I've heard something to help me understand those atmospheric effects. Wow!
Wow, that just blew my mind!
I've a phD in physics and still had exactly the same misunderstanding. I think, it's not just the arrows in the diagram, but most sources of information trying to make the complex topic understandable. Kind of similar to the various atomic models out there in schools and the web, which are scientifically all oversimplified, thus wrong when it comes to explaining chemistry (Schrödinger and Dirac are nodding).
Are you referring to the Bohr Model, or to Lewis diagrams? If the former, its inadequacy is itself often overstated. And here's a factoid about that may change the way you see it: in the QM model for the atom, the points of local maximum probability for finding the electron correspond to the Bohr orbit.
Curses Bohr!
I had Bohr's model in mind, but Lewis notation is another great example. Following Bohr's model, the orbital model did improve on what could be explained. Schrodinger's equation was improved by Dirac to include relativistic effects. We ever improve our models, but in the end they are all limited. Such is the greenhouse model for climate change.
If you take that -18C prediction for Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature and, (for modeling/prediction purposes), say that that temperature occurs 5km up in the atmosphere and then apply the ideal gas law what would you predict the temperature of the air at sea level to be?
You need to check out Doug McLean's "Common Misconceptions in Aerodynamics" on TH-cam from October 2013. He's a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who explains to other Boeing engineers that what they thought they knew about Navier-Stokes is all wet. Around 26:00 he explains that there's a reciprocal cause-and-effect relationship between velocity and pressure. If you manage to wade through the vorticity field due to the Biot-Savart law without hitting pause, you're a much better physicist than I would have even been, had I not taking the other fork in the road into computer science instead.
Sabine! A good science communicator is one who’s not afraid to say “this is more complicated than you think”. Thank you again for the great content you put out!
Sabine is also a good enough communicator to say "this is more complicated than even I thought, so I further educated myself."
It's always "more complicated than you think"...
It has to be very complicated to use water vapor and then make it disappear. Magic. Magic is not science.
Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory.
If you can believe the theory.
If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.
@@kanguruster It has to be complicated. To cover this up. Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory.
If you can believe the theory.
If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.
I wish flat earthers would realize that some things are harder than just "It looks flat to me" and then assume all of science must therefore be wrong!
nice explanations. the first time I actually questioned my believes and somewhat understood more about the processes involved was during the introduction part of the entropy video of veritasium - there the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation was briefly mentioned.
Btw it´s Kelvin not °K, it´s an absolute value not a relative temperature scale;)
Thank you Sabine for this excellent video!
Back when I studied physics, I also took some courses on astronomy and learned that a quantity called optical depth or optical thickness is very useful when discussing stellar atmospheres. There was a rule of thumb that the radiation we see comes from an optical depth of about 1, which provided relatively easy explanations for a surprising amount of the features of stellar spectra. This rule of thumb is also useful in earth's atmosphereprovides quantitative estimates for the altitudes at which radiation is emitted.
One detail about the glass houses in which we grow food - to the best of my knowledge, the main reason why they get hot is that the air inside is trapped. In experiments where the glass was replaced with infrared-transparent windows, the temperatures inside the "greenhouse" rose to almost the same levels.
I’m more afraid of gravity change. Since the widespread availability of backyard trampolines started in the late 60s the earth’s rotation has slowly been knocked out of kilter. It is now becoming critical, countless billions are being spent of so called ‘climate change” yet this more pressing pending disaster is largely ignored. I can solve this problem once and for all using strategically placed counter weights on springs at strategic gravity hotspots ( namely my backyard) and I can do all this for a cool 2.5 billion dollars. Don’t wait for the world to end with us all either shooting off into space of being crushed into the ground. Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute”. We are also hiring the services of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny to solve Climate Change. Santa is going to fly his slay around during his off season and the Easter Bunny will accompany him sprinkling the clouds with left over chocolate which has been finely powdered. This will stain the clouds brown and block the sun ending the dreaded warming that we are assured will one day cause sea levels to rise somehow. This can be done for the bargain price of 1.25 billion ! So what are you waiting for Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute” NOW or they may be no tomorrow !
I have a PhD in AMO physics and you just blew my mind. Thank you for this video! I feel when it comes to global warming there is a coverage gap between super-simplified explanations and full-blown climate models. I really appreciate your video explaining it layer by layer.
And that gap leaves a lot of room for CC-denying bullshit to slip through.
it's not bs when party X claims something is true, when it contradicts known physics... and then appeals to complicated "models" as excuse to produce the insight how the stuff works from physics point of view... ie upper-atmosphere cooling is dead obvious anyone who has looked upon planck's law and checked the empirical results of co2 measurements from 1905 and onwards... theres plenty of older climate stuff online that shows this parody... claiming after the fact you were caught pants down that you knew you have pants down... despite history showing people were adamant pants are up... is bad science itself... denying part might be elsewhere than you think
So give us an equation please ! I have also a phd in particles scattering (Mie theory etc)
@Lexoka no one really denies CC, it's just not an emergency. It's gotten an average of 1 degree warmer since the Industrial Revolution.
@@user-ti5rb1mx5x You mean the LIA? ;-)
There is a point somehwere along the learning curve, where one realizes how little one actually understands. Yet that is the gateway from ignorance toward a true grasp of a subject. We have all been somewhat misled by simplistic models, sadly most never reach the point where they recognize that they were misled. Anyway your video has also helped me to remedy my own misunderstanding that I had become aware of, and which brought me here for a proper explanation of the machanism of thermal forcing in AGW. Thank you Sabine.
Actually trying to recreate some research helps (or at least helped me).
Reading the paper (or actually the 2 papers we started from) I thought it was easy, half a year later, having dug through 3 layers of references I knew it was easy, but not like I at first thought it was ;-)
You still don't understand.
A or B?
A: we don’t fully understand climate change, let’s ignore it.
B: we don’t fully understand climate change, let’s be cautious.
@@jakecostanza802 B would be my answer...
@@irgendwieanders2121 I emailed this vid to Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert and he replied that Sabine had asked him questions just to clarify his research. She's done an excellent job to make his research more easily understood!! So I find this very exciting.
Thank you for explaining complex concepts in easy to understand segments en helping a simple man stay on the right course
All well & good but what about the simple ladies you'all. I was stunned watching it to note how ironically Sabine had excluded the simple ladies. Gerry Glass ceiling ?
@@grindupBakerthat's right, as she said in another report: "If you want to be a girl, join the physics club."😊
Wonderful! Sabine, your explanation makes more sense than any others.
"Stratospheric cooling" is the relief valve that releases infrared heat to outer space. Heat radiation does not need air nor any physical matter for heat transfer by conduction or convection. Radiation (infrared, or heat energy) can dissipate in vacuum space more efficiently which can occur at night. I don't think we can model the greenhouse after the earth's atmosphere. The green house that we are familiar with has air outside of the glass roof. The earth has no glass roof & there is vacuum outside that can allow infrared radiation freely to dissipate.
A glasshouse is an analogy - and, as always with analogies, there are things in common (heating of the surface by the sun; a mechanism which reduces cooling) and things which are different (how this mechanism works).
Very necessary video, my favorite channel never fails to deliver!
absolutely necessary!
to not being fired, and trown out of youtube.
R E C Y C L I N G is a sc4m
C0mpanies didn't want to stop using plastic so they blamed us for not "R E C Y C L I N G"
Use glass bottles instead and wash them.
@@armouredghoul8279simply drink tap water😜
That was... intense! I think you covered most of the innards of the full model. One issue I didn't see is the criticality, complexity, and difficult-to-model fractal variability of the water vapor component. Without high water vapor averages, we'd be a giant snowball even with astronomical increases in durable CO2 and fragile-in-oxygen methane.
Yes, that's right. I was about to go on about the relevance of water, but it just got too long. So I ended up just saying actually it's more complicated than that...
Without story about water and clouds it is still only half-truth 🤔
As Sabine pointed out, a 20 minutes video can only scratch the (warming) surface of an incredibly complex subject.
Then don't fuckin say you're going to explain it. 😂
@@rogerlie4176 I mean you can simply say upfront that "Both water vapor and greenhouse gases result in the green house effect, but this video is going to focus on the gasses-let me know in the comments of you'd like to see another video covering the water vapor aspect." Then with one sentence you covered your bases, let people know there's more to the (complicated) story, and driven some engagement (go go TH-cam algo rhythm).
Thanks for the exposition on this topic Sabine!.Your site is so informative with humour! Good luck, John lampe,sunny Perth,Western Australia.P.S.it really is sunny down here!
Daar Sabine, I think you should drop the part where you say that atmospheric pressure drops because gravity drops with altitude. In fact, because R=6372 km, it drops negligibly throughout te atmosphere and more imporatntly even if gravity is constant, the pressure would drop practically the same because of Boltzmann distribution.
Just adding that density decreases with altitude (less air, less weight, less pressure)
"It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
hear! hear!
"It is impossible to change a man's belief when he is being paid to believe."
@@stapleman007why would it be impossible? Pay more!
Or funding from a university
@@einhalbesbrotdid you hear how much those co2 extractor made on profits last year
@07:00 the falling gravity with altitude has negligible effect on the pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is mostly due the weight of the air column - densest at the bottom due to all the weight piled on it from above. About 50% of the atmosphere (by mass) is in the first 5000 metres or so. Earth's gravity potential at 100,000 metres is 0.97g. Has pretty much no effect on the change of air pressure (density) with altitude.
As to GH effect: I had the same issue up until this video:
th-cam.com/video/hUFOuoD3aHw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=SixtySymbols
I noticed that too.
But it did not detract from the overall science :)
There are also no satellites orbiting Earth in the stratosphere.
@@ephemerallyfe I did hear something odd there but didn't go back for a re-hear.
@@pompeymonkey3271 It's so fundamental, that, well, it detracts from "overall science" if not this specific topic.
I came looking for this this comment. I was surprised that she made that mistake. I'm sure she'll hear about it. It's fundamental enough that hopefully she'll provide a correction but I agree that it was overall a great video.
Accounting for the earth's heat transfer as an energy balance seems like the best point to start to make effective changes. Maybe we can "tweak" the surface temperature by making some local changes to reduce the concentration of resonance gasses in the stratosphere or lower. The stratospheric cooling test at 15:36 for solar effect or resonant gas concentration seems very relevant. I appreciate Sabine's presentation of trends and data to account for observations in the industrial era.
It's not decreasing gravity with altitude that reduces air pressure, Sabine, it's that there's less weight of air on top of of the air at any given altitude, the higher you go up. Think of an immense stack of cotton balls, they'll be crushed into solid felt at the bottom but still fluffy at the top. Yes, gravity does decrease the farther from the center of mass of the Earth you get, but the atmosphere is so thin compared to the size of Earth that the amount is negligible.
Anyway, same result, air is thicker down low.
I'm very pleased to learn that Sabine isn't one of those (typically) insecure scientists who are afraid to ever admit to having misunderstood something. Nobody, no matter how well educated and / or brilliant, has never been confused by anything in this exceedingly complex universe. _Maybe_ underlying it all are some simple rules, as some suggest, but the myriad layers of chaos and emergent properties make it on the whole quite confounding. What should be notable is not that scientists are sometimes wrong, but that they are frequently right.
Yes! Admitting that you don't fully understand something is usually a sign of intelligence, not the opposite.
They should actually be wrong more than they are right. A 90% failure rate is healthy.
I appreciate that greatly.
@@DavidHRyall of course it's part of the experimental process, but I'm more referring to what they consider their established knowledge base. In this case, the greenhouse effect is a very mature (although still expanding) science with a lot of popular exposure, so I'm sure any scientist worth their salt probably _thinks_ they understand it.
Sabine is extremely confident in herself, allowing herself to admit failures.
And imo, her confidence is well deserved.
She's legit.
Thank you for continuing to tackle very complicated topics! You put your explanations into context very well. Specifically, your explanation here is helpful and assumes we aren’t all too ignorant or stupid, or bad faith actors. Thanks again!
But you don't understand the physics, nor do any climate alarmists.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp So-called climate alarmists (or climatologists, in part) have been saying the same thing for decades - and the data supports what they’ve been saying. Glaciers are receding, the average temperature on the surface of the planet is going up… and the mechanisms for why this is happening is understood (well enough). What do you know that everyone else doesn’t?
@Mathew Kolakowski I understand physics. That's the difference. Anyone who claims CO2 can overheat the planet is clueless and doesn't understand physics.
Isn't it ironic that CO2 just keeps increasing agricultural output and not overheating the planet. Why do you think they call Greenland Greenland?
@Mathew Kolakowski It's pretty obvious Sabine doesn't understand greenhouse gases and she's just parroting what someone told her. She made the claim CO2 blocks all outgoing infrared; that is just patently false. It blocks very little and doesn't radiate heat to Earth.
If CO2 radiated all its heat, which is very little, it wouldn't rise in the atmosphere. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be hotter and colder.
Why do you think CO2 rises out of the oceans? What is it doing when it does that?
The co2 from jets in the stratosphere is capturing infrared warming the air
Excellent video and great explanation about how the arrows build the wrong intuition. Could you please add the hydraulic cycle to this? That is, when the lower atmosphere warms, it causes evaporation which causes more water vapor (greenhouse gas) but also absorbs heat. The vapor rises up to almost the stratosphere (at least in the tropics) and condenses which reflects sunlight well above the surface and also releases the latent heat from the water vapor at the doorstep of the stratosphere.
Lots of moving parts there: water vapor as a greenhouse gas, clouds reflecting light, and the transport of heat from the surface of the earth up to nearly the stratosphere where it's released. How does this mixture of insulation, umbrella, and heat-pumping work on balance? For bonus points, do you think Elves, Sprites, and Blue Jets transfer significant amounts of energy as well?
Having been involved in radio technology for most my life, I understood the "wiggling" a different way. I think of a molecule as a kind of antenna tuned to a specific frequency and associated harmonics.
So... Basically a molecule like H2O or CO2 is like an antenna that is tuned to certain frequencies that, when excited, resonates (vibrates, wiggles)... or you can think of it like a tuning fork.
Just as a tuning fork emits a specific sound regardless of what causes it to vibrate, a CO2 molecule resonates at specific frequencies of the EM spectrum.
So... that's my understanding.
Sure that's good enough for sure, whatever turns your crank. Greenhouse Effect is that top of troposphere is (much) colder than bottom of troposphere and colder bunches of molecules make less radiation than warmer bunches of molecules, and top of troposphere is closer to space and bottom of troposphere is closer to surface. That's it.
I am amazed. This is the video that the world needs because this misunderstanding is probably more widespread than we could ever be aware of. Your alternative arrows illustration really puts it all together what you explained in detail during the video, it makes so much sense and adds a lot of good argumentation also for our own understanding. Than you so much for that!
Some million more people have to see this.
I’m going to be completely honest……. I’m all for science education, and this video is pretty good, but I’m not sure if the general public needs to know, or is capable of understanding in any way, the subtle nuances and complexities of (exactly how) greenhouse gases cause warming
It is more than sufficient for the public to know the basic point, that higher greenhouse gas concentrations leads to warming, and that therefore we will need to attempt to control greenhouse gas emissions as part of any effective climate strategy
@@ifbfmto9338 I must recognise, your comment, give me to an dilemma:
1º True is needed, if not, mankind is only a farm in the hands of some 'special people'. And I , on science since 1980, point for true, for honesty, the roots of any, any, science.
2º Social science, tell us that most part of mankind,,,,,,,, to tell it on polite view, do not have science and true as its most high value,,,,,,,,,,, I hope you understand me.
So, yes, probably you have reason, but if we do this way, all mankind should, always, be cheated, swindled and robbed, yesterday, with 'the big-bad sadam hussein and his big and numerous massive destruction weapons', on 2011, with 'the big H1N1 mortality for all planet',,,,,,,,, about COVID,,,, you have your minds, they are the best judge,,,,,,,,,,, since 2005, 'the bad green-house' is going to give Mediterranean sea to Madrid, to Paris, and New-York (And Gozila) destroyed (It is nice to see all disaster on this city, ¿There are no other in the universe?),,,,,,,,, and so, on,,,,, forever.
But on the other side, I know (I am 62 years old, more knows the evil for age, than for being the evil) how mankind, ,,,,,,,, is.
So, yes, I can no solve this dilemma.
For me, I have my choice, work, study, hard, for the true, hard,,,,,
But for most, the true, is ,,,,,,,,,, other thing.
Ifbfmto,,,,,,,,,,,,,, your words are not vane,,,,,,,, history is this way, now, and in Roma.
About thirty years ago in the early 1990s, I attended a colloquium given by a climate scientist about this subject. At the end of the presentation I asked exactly the question about the broad, saturated absorption bands of water versus the narrow band of carbon dioxide, which, sadly, our guest speaker could not answer, and I have wondered about ever since. So, now we know, and I am still alive.
You can plainly see H2O gas radiating from average ~2 km above surface on any FTIR from space (since 1964 when they started with IRIS-A on Nimbus 1). You see the 10-13 microns that goes up in the land surface "atmospheric window". You see the huge CO2 notch that cuts far higher (far colder, far less radiated) than the King Water Vapour in the lowest ~2 km above surface. This is why non Water Vapour are called the "well-mixed" ones by scientists, because they go very high without condensing & thus losing most of their LWR power (clouds water drops & ice crystals do have LWR effect into them about 10 microns of course but it's far more powerful when the molecules are spread out as a gas because their molecule pals don't crowd them out). University Chicago MODTRAN has a Sahara Desert sample 1968 FTIR & there are others around like examples of these measured FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra (for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) can be seen at th-cam.com/video/Oog7-KOtpEA/w-d-xo.html at 18:07
FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the IRIS Infra-Red Interferometer Spectrometer instruments on the Nimbus-1 (1964 - 1964), Nimbus-2 (1966 - 1969), Nimbus-3 (1969 - 1972) satellites show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite.
MODTRAN is this:
Software Description
MODTRAN - MODerate spectral resolution atmospheric TRANSsmittance algorithm and computer model, developed by AFRL/VSBT in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc.
MODTRAN4 has been available to the public since Jan 2000. It remains the state-of-the-art atmospheric band model radiation transport model.
PATENT: The Air Force Research Lab, Space Vehicles Directorate, in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc., is pleased to continue the release of MODTRAN4 as a fully UNCLASSIFIED atmospheric radiative transfer code and algorithm. MODTRAN4 follows the prior releases of LOWTRAN (now fully obsolete) and the earlier MODTRAN3 series. MODTRAN4 has been awarded a U.S. Patent, # 5,884,226; 16 March 1999.
FEE: Access to MODTRAN4 requires that a new Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) be signed and a fee paid. Source code, data files and PC-executables are all on CD-Rom and distributed by the ONTAR Corporation for the Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL). The fee payment instructions will be supplied upon receipt of the signed NDA. Because the moderate fee (~$300) includes user-support, all receiving parties (Universities, Corporations, and Government Agencies) are subject to the assessment. Furthermore, the NDA term "CORPORATION" only denotes an individual research group. If any single CORPORATION has disparate research groups, each using MODTRAN4 in a different capacity, then the fee applies separately to each group. To do otherwise (distribute across research applications) constitutes secondary re-distribution, which must be individually negotiated with the AIR FORCE.
DESCRIPTION: The Moderate Resolution Transmittance (MODTRAN) Code calculates atmospheric transmittance and radiance for frequencies from 0 to 50,000 cm-1 at moderate spectral resolution, primarily 2 cm-1 (20 cm-1 in the UV). The original development of MODTRAN was driven by a need for higher spectral resolution and greater accuracy than that provided by the LOWTRAN series of band model algorithms. Except for its molecular band model parameterization, MODTRAN adopts all the LOWTRAN 7 capabilities, including spherical refractive geometry, solar and lunar source functions, and scattering (Rayleigh, Mie, single and multiple), and default profiles (gases, aerosols, clouds, fogs, and rain).
CURRENT CAPABILITIES: The current release is MODTRAN4, version 3.1. This version number connotes the additions of some errata and new physics since MODTRAN4 was first patented and released. The major developments in MODTRAN4 are the implementation of a correlated-k algorithm (references below) which facilitates accurate calculation of multiple scattering. This essentially permits MODTRAN4 to act as a 'true Beer-Lambert' radiative transfer code, with attenuation/layer now having a physical meaning. More accurate transmittance and radiance calculations will greatly facilitate the analysis of hyperspectral imaging data. The other major addition to MODTRAN has been to provide sets of Bi-directional Radiance Distribution Functions (BRDFs) that permit the surface scattering to be other than Lambertian. The combination of correlated-K and BRDFs has greatly improved the scattering accuracy, as has the implementation of azimuthal asymmetries.
The lack of understanding by the climate scientist proves it’s not based on science. We do know the WEF power cartel is using the fear of climate change to steal farms from the farmers who worked their land for generations
Is co2 glorified humidity?
Water vapor is a more significant greenhouse contributor than is CO2.
I am with you. I have heard 50 years of gloom and doom scenarios, and none have been realized. Were any of then true,I would be dead three times over. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but as numerous physicists have comment (Bill Happer and Tyson Freeman among them) it’s contribution is already near its maximum, and will not contribute significantly in the future. The “shoulder” argument Sabine references is bogus. Vibrational molecular energy absorption is quantized, so there are no “soft shoulders”, and a few degrees of temperature increase will widen the CO2 absorption range, but at 273K that effect will be insignificant.
@@hg2. No.
Amazing explanation, and yes, I had it a bit wrong too.
Just one clarification: the main reason why the density of the atmosphere goes down with altitude is not so much because gravity goes down. Actually, gravity changes very little from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere, because the thickness of the atmosphere is small compared to the distance to the center of the planet. The main reason is more trivial: it's just because it has less gas piled on top. When we're standing on the ground, we have our 1 atm pressure because of the weight of the gas on top. As you go up there is less and less gas on top, so pressure goes down. Following the ideal gas law, at lower pressure lower density. That will hold true even if gravity remains the same.
You are absolutely right. Hard to believe that she makes such a huge mistake. Just ridiculous.
Thanks Sabine! 🇸🇪
I put this as a basis for further studies. I have long promised myself to familiarize myself with what it is that basically constitutes our global warming. It's complex to get a gripp on, but with the prevailing weather in Sweden, the holiday is best enjoyed during a scientific exploration. 🙂👍🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
Top Facts on Climate Controversy, Fully Explained - See for Yourself! ://th-cam.com/video/wnjozntXnZ4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=IvorCummins
Amazing video.
My father and I are both STEM masters, he is (or at least was, we haven't discussed the topic in a while and he has changed views over time before) a climate change denier. He always dropped the point about how the radiation is fully absorbed early on, the first time you say rhetorically "so it's all a hoax?", which is very easily verifiable and bunks the first model you go over and stumped me for a long time.
Trying to find clear scientific info on the topic took a lot of research and eventually I found a paper on radiative forcing (referenced by the Copenhagen papers that I read in their entirety) which I believe is the 2nd point where you get to the rhetorical "so isn't it all a hoax then?". I found the same issues as you. It's so hard to find good science info to actually understand amidst all the political content.
I don't think the majority of climate supporters even understand the first explanation. For them it's a political issue and the science is "Just trust the experts". I have always seen holes in the flawed explanations you call out and have kind of been agnostic as to whether the cause is CO2 or not, to me the correlation was unproven and I was supporting climate measures out of more of a pascal's wager: better to take measures and be wrong than to not take measures and be wrong. The correlation is certainly there.
It never sat well with me though, and every time I ever brought up doubts, I always get appeals to authority ("trust me the experts know way more than you just trust them") or ad hominem attacks ("how can you not care about the Earth???") when I just wanted to learn. Over the last 12 years I have asked many stem people in real life, made an r/askscience thread asking for clarification on how radiative forcing actually translates to warming, and never gotten a satisfactory answer (but a ton of attacks for daring to question what people are politically invested in for sure).
In my experience, the percentage of people who can give the greenhouse explanation is maybe 50%, the number who know about radiative forcing is
th-cam.com/video/0d55np01aPU/w-d-xo.html
One thing you should keep in mind before you go on the attack. No one who knows science discredits or ignores the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The real questions of importance are these: 1) Will the warming be significant? Sabine's presentation explains why we should expect some warming from CO2, all other things being equal, but she doesn't provide an estimate of the amount of the effect. 2) Will the warming be good or bad? There is plenty of evidence that additional CO2 and warming result in a greening of the planet and higher crop yields,. 3) Are there other factors such as cloud formation physics that are involved that we do not understand enough to draw realistic conclusions about anthropogenic CO2 and 4) Can we trust the global alarmists? They've been shouting "The sky is falling and the seas are rising rapidly and accelerating" for the last 30 years. (E.g. the Maldives were supposed to have been submerged by 2018 according to a prediction by Noel Brown, head of the UN's Environmental Office in New York in 1988.) Yet according to tide gauge data from around the world, the average sea level rise along the coasts has been about 1.8mm/yr for more than 100 years. If there has been any acceleration it is trivial. JR Houston (2021) found an acceleration of .0128mm/yr/yr - which is indeed trivial.
I have studied it a lot as well like you, but without any masters degree.
And I don't dispute that our added CO2 does change it a bit.
But I am called denier, like your father for the questions I am asking.
My questions are plain and simple..
- how much does it actually change the temperature on the earth?
No calculations are shown ever!
- will that be a problem?
I don't see any problem in the temperature rising a fraction, as well if you would purely calculate the radiative forcing, my calculations would end up around 0,7°C for a Co2 doubling.
I would like to hear your opinion on this as someone with a masters degree...
@@doctordapp Well, in my region, vintners are happy to cultivate kinds of grape that need more sun and warmth than ever before (that is a couple of hundreds of years, just to be clear) producing better wine.
Nice, isn't it?
Not really, in the Alps, skiing in winter can only take place in higher altitude, with lower altitude facilities already going out of business. Glaciers in the Alps shrink, rainfall patterns change to the truly erratic but insufficient side, groundwater levels sink, twisters are a thing now and bugs only found far south a decade ago are the new normal.
All in all, there is so much more energy in the atmosphere, ground dries up and now common species of trees are already in decline.
Mankind set free CO2 that has been sequestered over millions of years in a span of a mere 100 years. We already see the effects.
There is no known precedent of CO2 levels rising this sharply in earths history (levels, yes. But speed of change, no).
There is no known natural mechanism to catch that much CO2 in such a short period of time we need to keep our civilization (and economy) going the same way as today.
@@wuokawuoka glaciers in the alps shrink and grow.
If you look at newspapers from the 1930's you see exactly the same conclusions. After that the glaciers where growing again until the late 70s.
So I am still not convinced that all this temperature rise is caused by us.
The last market on the thames was in 1814.how was it better then?
They can declare the current rise with Co2, but the can't explain the rise in the 30s with the same story.
So the story doesn't compile to logic here....
Thank you. I now understand the phenomena more thoroughly.
I will have to play it a couple more times to be comfortable with my understanding.
I just noticed that several other commenters said similar things.
This means that your presentation is just about the level that I need. Thank you again.
Do not watch this video, it is wrong from start to finish. The mechanism of greenhouse gas heating is very simple--- extra CO2 scatters infrared light, leading to a longer path-length to escape. The mechanism is photon-by-photon, the mean-free-path to scattering is reduced with extra CO2, and so there is NO INTERFERENCE between wavelengths, there are NO COMPLICATIONS, and you can calculate the extra heating simply on the back on an envelope (if you are a physicist) without any problem. Sabine is not a climate scientist, and it shows.
Yeah, this "Principles of planetary climates" by Pierrehumbert is a really great book, I do love it. The relevant processes and the physics is described really well
It is pure nonsense.
This was so great. Thank you so much. It will help much in daily discussions
To err is human, to admit it is humility, to share it is wisdom. Thank you Sabine - this only increases my respect for you.
I'm sorry about that huge dent in the rear fender of your car. That'll just buff right out you know. Splash some paint on.
But Sabina, are we going to die if Countries don't stop producing CO2? Do we really need to stop using fossil fuels?
Busty babe
Thanks, a side interest in atmospheric science, taught me that most heat flow at the surface is caused by convective and latent processes. There is still a window by which infra-red radiation escapes, which is clear to see on frosty nights, as the surface cools quickly by radiation. There is also "back radiation" from the atmosphere above, known as downward longwave radiation (DLR) which can exceed 300watts/M^2. That is where some of the oppressive heat on hot, still nights originates from.
Thanks for trying to explain. I tried understanding but got very lost, especially after you explained that the temperature increases again after a certain height. I'll keep watching and hoping I get it.
The "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" don't cause the temperature to increases again after a certain height. Sunshine has ~10% of its radiation as vicious stuff like towards X-rays and Gamma rays that gives people radiation poisoning. BUT way up like 100 km the atmosphere stops essentially all of it by the radiation (called UV-C) busting apart N2 & O2 that are almost all of air. Then they recombine. This energy heats that bit "the thermosphere". Because it's coming in from above the top gets the Lion's share so thermosphere is hotter at the top. Same thing for stratosphere you were talking about except it's UV-B from the Sun busting ozone that stops the UV-B and its energy makes stratosphere hotter at the top because it's coming in from the top. Troposphere at the bottom is constantly mixed from bottom to top because warm air rise and the Sun keeps warming the surface, that's what causes clouds & wind. So troposphere is coldest at the top and top is closest to space so the H2O, CO2 & CH4 don't make much radiation because it's cold up there and that's the "greenhouse effect" radiation up towards space reduced because the molecules are cold compared with the surface. Since the Sun's UV-B busting ozone O3 heated the top of stratosphere more than its bottom then the H2O, CO2 & CH4 molecules at the top make more radiation than at the bottom because they are hotter (which means they bash N2 & O2 more often and harder, which is what makes this radiation). That's enough I'm done you're on your own now.
Thank you Sabine for being a caring person. You help the rest of us have a better understanding of physical things. One thing I wish you would show is T Corona Borealis and whether the thermonuclear surface explosion adds to or subtracts total white dwarf mass. All that infall of material makes one think it is gaining mass but maybe not.
I’m very impressed with all your skills and talents - physicist, lecturer, writer, science communicator (like Carl Sagan), and to top it off, a savvy marketeer. Congratulations!
KIS helps Sane thinking.
You forgot Singer/Songwriter: th-cam.com/channels/PtRwW9i43BXbCRQa7BJaiA.html
@@RWin-fp5jn Much of what you say is correct. However, the earth is greener in 2019 than 20 years earlier. Check MODIS data at NASA. Increased CO2 is due to more plant matter, not less. None of the supposedly learned "scientists" can explain the causes of every other warming and cooling period in history that occurred before humans walked the planet. But THIS one... THIS one is definitely anthropomorphic. Because it's convenient from a hysterical perspective. During the last glacial maximum, temperatures were only a couple of degrees lower than now. Before the sheeple are convinced that the logical thing to do is cool the planet, we might ask the people who now live where the last glaciers were. I live where the Columbia River lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet was. OK, I just took a poll of my household. We all vote not to cool the planet.
She also sings. Check her other channel.
Whoops! Sabine, you made a little mistake at 7:05. The atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude almost entirely because as you go up, there is less weight above you to push down. It's not because gravity decreases by r-squared. Yes gravity does decrease, but that is a much smaller contributor to the effect. This doesn't change your overall explanation. Thanks.
👍
But remember that the "weight above you to push down" is itself dependent on gravity. Otherwise there would be *no* weight.
@@SpectatorAlius Sure, but over the 50 or so km relevant to the greenhouse effect g doesn't vary much and the pressure very much does. In a hypothetical flat Earth where g doesn't vary with height you would still get the approximately exponential drop-off of atmospheric pressure with height. (Assume this hypothetical Earth is accelerating upwards to provide gravity, and has walls on the edges to keep the atmosphere in.)
she needed to make that mistake so she could poke fun at the flat earthers. Ph Ds are the most arrogant (and most frequently wrong) people on the planet.
if you believe in traceless strain tensors, the weaker gravity in the longitudinal direction is entirely canceled by the "focusing" (converging radial gravity lines-of-force) in the two transverse directions.
Sounded, as always, that Sabine really understands this topic, but I’m unable to process such a rapid fire delivery; will need to rewatch at least once.
I think it's only a modest charge for refills.
What you do is click on the little gear wheel bpttom right of TH-cam playing and select speed - make it 75 per cent. I do this anyway.
Wow very amazing channel I seriously just learned some complex physics and was able to relate from taking statistics and chemistry… my mind is blown. I love how different subjects like science and math come together 🎉
This was amazing but I need to watch it again to fully get it - if I can. Though I'm pretty sure pressure and density doesn't reduce with altitude because gravity is less higher up, its because there is less gas pushing down from above the further up you go
Yes, actually a combination of the two(I know that you understand that). I think that the effect of the reduction in gravity with altitude on atmospheric pressure is tiny compared to the effects of the reduction in gas pushing down on the atmosphere below with altitude.
@@samuellowekey9271 Gravity has a part to play in the diurnal atmospheric temperature. During the day the increased temperature raises the centre of mass of the entire atmospheric column by around 100m - raising its potential energy. During the night, as the temperature reduces, the centre of mass descends back by that 100m thereby compressing the air and raising its temperature by compression/gravity alone. This is the diurnal squeezing effect which is substantial. But do any of the climate models take it into account?
Of course, just like gravity is essentially the same in the space station as on earth.... I don't need to elaborate.
Try and dive 4m down in water. The pressure increase is already immense!... Is it because the gravity is stronger, down there? 😏
Of course not. It's because of the weight of the water above you.
Same with air, only it weighs less so you need bigger differences in altitude to feel the difference in pressure.
I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmosphere is close enough to the Earth for the gravity to be about equal throughout it. If Earth is the size of a football, the atmosphere is 1 mm thick, something like that.
@@EeezyNoow , in nighttime, the center of mass of the atmosphere sinks back 100m, thus compressing the air, thus INCREASING ITS TEMPERATURE?!...
No no no, the air reduces in volume by night BECAUSE the temperature is lower. Therefore, this "compression" does not increase its temperature again!
The temperature of a gas only increases if compressed by an outer force, raising its pressure. Not if it just relaxes into a smaller volume because it gets cooler, and at a constant pressure, like in the case of nighttime. It's the ideal gas law:
PV = nRT
When T sinks PV must decrease. In this case, it's V that decreases, and P stays the same. (Atmospheric pressure is the same in daytime and nighttime, on average.)
At 7:03 Sabine suggests that the force of gravity decreasing with altitude is responsible for air pressure getting lower with altitude, but that is wrong. Over those 100 km air pressure goes from 1 bar to almost 0, whereas the force of gravity is just 3% lower than on the ground.
Instead air is less dense up there because there‘s less air above it pushing down on it.
Really great video again. And thanks a lot for giving us an argument against the often told argument that the sun is responsible for global warming. I will write a note saying "stratospheric cooling" and pin it to the wall to remember. And watch the video again tomorrow to be sure I understood everything alright.
Sabine. I learn a lot of your clear explanation. I stay on board. Great.
Powerful analogies are great to give people a sense of physical concepts, but they can also lead us to false reasoning. 😑
Loving your content, I also had the same confusion as you before studying it. :)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it calculate quaternions to simplify special relativity calculations.
Agreed. Hawking radiation with virtual particles handed me the wrong stick for a while.
Neil deGrasse Tyson needs to hear this
So what was her conclusion?
Reducing carbon gas is a waste of money? It's obvious the planet is warming, satellite photos prove that. Wouldn't reducing CO gas slow the effect?
@@TimeTheory2099 Global warming is still a serious problem. The atmospheric mechanism that causes it is a bit more complicated than the standard analogies explain. And most educational illustrations are incorrect as they are overly simplified.
I did my undergraduate honours degree in physics and geophysics. I'm really impressed by how well both the broad principles and the intrinsic complexities of atmospheric physics were explained. I've had numerous requests to explain global warming and whether or not it's all a hoax being pulled by greedy scientists eager to pad their research grants so they can drink champagne and live the high life in their luxurious 5 star ivory tower penthouses or is it real and being played down by billion dollar industrial lobbies keen to ensure that they can continue to make huge profits from the extraction and sale of hydrocarbons. I'll point them to this video from now on (except those who insist the world is flat or that the moon landings were all fake - unfortunately they seem to live in another Universe entirely and it's one I don't really understand).
Why are you lying about your education? ;-)
see Princeton Prof of Physics, William Happer & MIT Prof of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen
the moon landings never happened, and father xmas ain't real either.
It's the latter scenario. The former doesn't make sense.
Hi! I came from Bert Hubert's post about global warming.
Thanks for visually explaining, altough it was hard to connect everything you said. The point is understood, but some details went by too quickly. For example the widening of energy gap of CO2 at delta heights and delta temperatures were hard to link between hypothetical change and hypothetical effect, this could use 30 seconds extra videotime for summarization.
(My background level is middle school understanding.)
My understanding is that the power QUANTITY relating to widening of the O3 & CO2 ditches and the suppression of power across H2O and N2O, CH4 (which are not ditch-shaped) are still not able to be confirmed against the continuous measurement from space since 1964. The general shape produced by the line-by-line calculations for a layered atmosphere (couple of hundred layers) matches very well the sample spectra from the continuous measurement from space since 1964 of course. The 5 or 6 groups of physicists average 3.7 w/m**2 for the obvious example of CO2*2. The recent William Happer & William van Wijngaarden has 3.0 w/m**2 so they are down at the low end in the pack. I don't know how the various assessments vary for H2O gas, CH4 & N2O. If you're interested the science at all you could start there. Obviously you knew literally nothing about any of it or you wouldn't be trying to get educated by this padded comedy-version mistake-ridden infotainment toddler-level explanation of Sabine's. Michel Van Biezen has excellent videos in sensible form rather than Sabine's tiresome Silly-Comedy form but unfortunately Michel drops the ball at the crucial point (he does the re-emit drivel) but that doesn't detract from his large quantity of background known facts. Good luck. The Science of Doom Web Site has a lot of interesting information about it. At th-cam.com/video/8Ukxv5-pwlg/w-d-xo.html is much better than Sabine's except he drops the ball exactly the same way as Michel Van Biezen. Edit: I'm not certain I'm correctly remembering Michel Van Biezen's lectures as one of those that dropped the ball at the crucial point and I'll not be listening to the 6 hours of lectures again to check that any time soon.
" hypothetical change and hypothetical effect,"
This isn't hypothetical at all, but has been *measured* for many decades.
@BertPdeboy "I was hoping that your "Bert Hubert's post about global warming" reference would be near-perfect quality but I'm 1/3rd through and it disappoints too much. It describes Sabine's video here as great but this video is heavily-padded infotainment, not a serious attempt, containing Sabine's brain-dead brain fart because she's so clumsy and couldn't-care-less plus a few mistakes in logic and phrasing. That's not awful but then "Bert Hubert" totally wrecked his post with "This idea was gratefully borrowed from the “Sixty Symbols” video The Greenhouse Effect Explained" and that “Sixty Symbols” video is absolutely THE WORST and FAKE "greenhouse effect" explanation I've found on video and I've found about 3 dozen and all but 3 are real turkeys so it's quite an "achievement" to be "Worst of breed". The shitty “Sixty Symbols” first totally removes the actual "greenhouse effect" and then concocts TOTALLY-FAKE surface warming of 51 degrees simply by an obvious scam. The “Sixty Symbols” one is the only one I've come across that's actually sickening, all the others except a few correct or OK ones merely being a bit puerile and not being actually sickening like the “Sixty Symbols” one. Since this "Bert Hubert" is clearly rather thick in the brain department it doesn't bode well for whatever else his understanding is going to run to. Sheesh it's been astonishing me for 7 years, since I pondered it for an afternoon, that absolutely none of you can grasp the simple fact that cooler parcels of matter radiate less out of their boundary than warmer parcels of matter. I'd assumed this would be patently obvious to >90% of humans, buy clearly it's patently obvious to
Thanks for a great explanation, this fills in many gaps I had in putting
the data understanding n my head..
Really glad to see a video that explains this. But there's an error (which doesn't really affect the fundamental point) where you say air pressure decreases with height primarily because gravity weakens - gravity varies very little over the thickness of the atmosphere - pressure decreases with height mainly because each layer of the atmosphere is holding up all of the atmosphere above it, so pressure must be highest at the surface and then it decreases to zero out to space, roughly exponentially with height.
The next video can explain why temperature really decreases with height up to the stratosphere- it's not just due to pressure decreasing - fun physics with radiative-convective equilibrium etc. ;-)
👍
Love your videos, Ms. Sabine. Keep up the good work. And yes , this was, for me, super useful.
LOVE your presentation on this! You're smart and explain well.
Add in a third grade level and sell/share it with educational providers.
Add in a third grade level.....good idea.....and sell it to Trump voters. That's the level of science they function at
I have been trying to find this answer for years. thank you for your explanation.
Thank you Professor Sabine.
It was high time that such a video was released.
Why? Everything in this video is incorrect. Sabine is not an expert in climate science, and this video is a form of soft global warming denial, by incompetently rebutting global warming denier claims.
Great explanation. I had heard the term ‘radiative forcing’ used in this context. I think I’ve got a better grip on the idea now. Didn’t realize the stratosphere was cooling which forces infrared emission to higher altitude.
Does heat go from a cold body to a warm body? Which is cooler,the ocean(earth's surface) or the atmosphere?
@@itsgottobesaid4269 Review the “CO2 ditch”.
1:35 that is actually not how a green house works.
The main effect is not keeping the IR radiation in, but keeping the heated air inside. A greenhouse would work with IR transparent glasses as long as it reduced/prevents convection.
@@viktorm3840
I don't understand. Are you trying to come back to the so called "Green House effect" of the earth-atmosphere-system which works by entrapping IR-radiation?
I fully agree in the theory of that one.
I was just commenting on actual green houses. You could set one up on moon If you want. There is no need for an atmosphere outside of the greenhouse for it to work. The important thing is just that the heated air stays where it is, inside the greenhouse.
'convection' not connection
@@dontvoteforanybody3715 autocorrect. thanks for noting. I changed it.
My thoughts exactly. Also, are we certain that glass actually reflects IR that well? I mean, (old-school, self-built) greenhouses would typically use plain, cheap glass, the kind that was used a century ago, to bring cost down, if they use glass at all. Modern lenses are not an example of such a material. They use special optical materials with coatings engineered to have certain properties. And how much energy makes it to the glass as IR? I never really thought about it. As a child, I took it for granted that a greenhouse works by trapping warm air inside. We had one in the garden. You'd think it's the same game as keeping a house warm, except your heat source is solar radiation which you have to let in so you need a lot of glass. Sources of heat loss in the order of importance would be convection, conduction and radiation. Conduction is a problem because glass is thin, double glazing is expensive, but (*) the temperature difference is going to be a lot smaller compared to a heated house. I have never tried to calculated it but I think even in a greenhouse double glazing to reduce conduction would give you better performance than reflecting IR. I can imagine radiation being important at night with the cold night sky and glass roof. * Edited to replace "and" with "but".
Thanks Sabine, I am a big fan of your videos. Thanks for educating me.
Gravity is BARELY less at the cruising altitude of an airliner, not even as high as the ISS, the air pressure is less because there is less atmosphere pushing down from above you.
Brilliant explanation, turns out I had misunderstood it as well. Many thanks for making this.
Always informative, easy to understand and amusing.
Thanks so much.
Easy to understand?
I've watched this twice and it goes over my head. :(
@@anticorncob6 That's a fair comment, and it applies to me, too, but in comparative/relative terms, this is easy to understand (though not fully).
Sabine, thank you for this explanation of the greenhouse effect.
This was good. Thanks for deciding to present what you found on this subject, I think you're correct in that such a presentation that gives an explanation at this level of detail is important for a general understanding of the process.
This video is entirely composed of lies.
You're a great teacher Professor Sabine! Always a pleasure to watch your videos!
😆🤣😂
Interesting that I haven't seen a proper explanation of the greenhouse effect until now.
Michel Van Biezen's is hugely detailed packed with related information but then fails at the crucial element. Still good related inof though.
Then you simply have not looked enough. There are books on it out there which are easy to find.
Good explanation. But, the drop in air pressure with altitude has nothing to do with the 1/R^2 decrease in gravity. The atmosphere is less than 100km thick so the change in gravity is trivial.
Yeah she apologizes for the brain fart in the video comments
Great post Sabine. I'm glad you have the patience to gather all this information and package it nicely here. You are a trooper. So many variables would make me feel overwhelmed. 🤩
I am so glad I understand this better now. It’s an energy issue! This really helped me grasp the concept better and I definitely agree that your proposed graphic w arrows is far better than old way!! Thx for researching
you become dumber listening to her.
Thankyou for explaining things so clearly. One question I would like help on understanding is about temperature in the atmosphere. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of all the gas molecules in a system. So surely any increase in temperature is dependent on the oxygen, nitrogen and argon non radiating molecules increase in kinetic energy.An increase in temperature would raise air pressure thus making the transfer to space of radiation higher in the atmosphere. Wouldn’t more radiating molecules higher in the atmosphere mean more radiation being able to be radiated out to space?
"Temperature is the average kinetic energy of all the gas molecules in a system"
Not the same, but the two are linked.
"An increase in temperature would raise air pressure"
No. A change in volume is also possible. p*V = n * R * T
"Wouldn’t more radiating molecules higher in the atmosphere mean more radiation being able to be radiated out to space?"
You obviously missed to understand the point of the PhD-version. Emission from higher in the atmosphere is *always* less efficient than from the surface directly. More molecules higher above would move the emission height even higher, making the emission even less efficiently!
"dependent on the oxygen, nitrogen and argon non radiating molecules". Yes, a vibrating IR-active molecule transfers the energy on collision with N2, O2, whatever, increasing heat, 2.7 billion per second. "Wouldn’t more radiating molecules higher in the atmosphere mean more radiation being able to be radiated out to space?". Only in the stratosphere, not in the troposphere (lowest 80% of all air molecules so the largest effect). It's the balance between the amount of LWR from below absorbed by the IR-active molecules, which does not depend on the temperature of the air parcel, and the LWR manufactured & emitted upwards by the IR-active molecules, which does depend on the temperature of the air parcel. Since it gets cooler with altitude, the net result is less LWR emitted upwards. I'm finding this particular question passing strange the last 10 years since this aspect has been MEASURED FROM SPACE CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1964 (IRIS-A on Nimbus 1) and since sample plots have been all over the internet for at least 15 years. Nonetheless, I'm taking you as a person interested and not one of the Vast Army of drive-by Trolls you can read in the hundreds of Fake Question & Drivel comments below. The so-called "greenhouse effect" (GHE) in Earth's troposphere does work backwards and cause cooling like you incorrectly supposed only when surface temperature is below 228K (-45 degrees) and the GHE gets increasingly more powerful, causing more warming, as surface temperature increases per the plot with millions of measurements from space all over Earth (a vast range of surface temperatures measured, a green hash) at one of my links below. From my correct reasoning of the physics above I did 8 years ago I always knew that it would show less GHE, even backwards GHE, in bitter-cold winter polar regions, knew for a couple years or more before I came across the measurement proof on the internet. See below for MEASUREMENT FROM SPACE clearly showing H2O gas, CO2 (huge notch) & O3 (little notch) warming the surface for Sahara, Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Iraq but COOLING the surface of Antarctica in winter (because, obviously, the troposphere gets warmer with altitude just like the stratosphere). See clearly the centre CO2 & O3 maximum power centre spikes in the stratosphere causing cooling just like you said, but only the tiny stratosphere spike effect shown, so it's totally overwhelmed by troposphere warming effect. The 5 or so groups of physicists producing varying (by about 20%) results all do a 120--layer calculation (or some such) for the top of troposphere and a separate layered calculation for the stratosphere and the GHE is a more powerful effect at the top of troposphere because the stratosphere gases reduce it (actually, I need to check that because stratosphere is cooling for well-mixed gases by warming for H2O gas, but it's too advanced for a comment in this venue consisting of >99.9% liars & idiots, I might never bother).
----------
Measured from space since 1964 samples and the green hash plot of the varying (GREATLY VARYING) "greenhouse effect" (GHE) all over Earth (note the backwards GHE over Antarctica in winter because no sunshine so the heat is descending instead of ascending):
th-cam.com/video/NNgMyDRWWrA/w-d-xo.html at 3:50
th-cam.com/video/Oog7-KOtpEA/w-d-xo.html at 18:07 (4 FTIR samples for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq)
th-cam.com/video/s-ab-ZNXnZ8/w-d-xo.html at 30:55 (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica)
th-cam.com/video/rgP-lwf2tb8/w-d-xo.html at 17:09 and 20:18 (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica)
-----------------
climatemodelsuchicagoedumodtranmodtrandochtml
It has one comparison with Sahara Desert measurement to prove it's accuracy. The measured since 1964 are IRIS on Nimbus series. At 1969 it's:
Nimbus 3 IRIS instrument satellite 1969
Nimbus 3, the third in a series of second-generation meteorological research-and-development satellites, was designed to serve as a stabilized, earth-oriented platform for the testing of advanced meteorological sensor systems and the collecting of meteorological data. The polar-orbiting spacecraft consisted of three major elements: (1) a sensory ring, (2) solar paddles, and (3) the control system housing. The solar paddles and the control system housing were connected to the sensory ring by a truss structure, giving the satellite the appearance of an ocean buoy.
Mission/Portal Page: nssdcgsfcnasagovnmcmasterCatalogdo ? sc=1969-037A
Launch Vehicle: Thor-Agena
Instruments: HRIR (High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer)
IDCS (Image Dissector Camera System), IRIS (Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer), IRLS (Interrogation, Recording and Location System), MRIR (Medium-Resolution Infrared Radiometer)
MUSE (Monitor of Ultraviolet Solar Energy)
RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator)
SIRS (Satellite Infrared Spectrometer)
............ etc etc etc
Ms Hossenfelder. Thank you for this video, and all the videos you make.
7:00 The gravitational force is as good as constant between 0 and 100 km altitude (6400 to 6500 km for the inverse square calculation), so the inverse square law doesn't matter unless you have a fight with flat earthers.
Sabine,
Emissions altitude is a mathematical construct quite similar to calculating the the average depth of snow in North America. So is actually an after-the-fact calculation based on previous assumptions.
A lot of IR gets from the ground all the way to outer space through the atmospheric window from about 8 to 14 microns wavelengths. This actually covers the peak emissions temperature of the entire surface to cold cloud tops in differing amounts depending on wavelength and cloud cover…You are capable of checking how much yourself.
If you apply Planck’s law to say 5 degrees instead of the 1 degree we often look at, you realize there will be a heat imbalance driving the assumed temperature colder again by the “Planck feedback” as the warm surface radiates more to outer space than it “receives”.
Yes bands broaden, but not enough. You have to invoke more clear sky, thus lower planetary albedo to get enough sunlight watts to surface….but higher temperature is likely to cause more clouds, thus higher planetary albedo,as the higher resultant water vapor convects upward. So this indicates that “global warming” is limited by Planck’s law.
Pierrehumbert Fig. 4.44 plus a Stephan Boltzmann calc of IR are instructive in this calculation.
BTW, use of Modtran is much preferable to the emissions altitude approach. Wishing you luck as you continue.
Good video but you missed on the explanation of decreasing pressure with altitude. If someone put a ton of bricks on you, you would feel a lot of pressure - not because gravity is different but because gravity is pulling the ton of bricks down on you. If you dive 50 feet down in the sea, you will experience a significance increase in pressure because the weight of the water is adding to the atmospheric pressure at the surface. Standing on a beach at sea level you experience the standard air pressure. If you go up 18,000 feet, you experience an atmospheric pressure that is half that at sea level because you are now above half of the atmosphere. The distance from earth’s center to the surface is about 4,000 miles. If you go up another 18,000 ft you add another 3.4 miles. Even squared the difference ratio has changed very little and gravitational pull has decreased only 0.2%.
Thx Sabine,
one small step for me of understanding it.
I actually used your argument today (yes i watch complex videos more then once)
I said: Stratospheric cooling :D you would be so proud of me! hehehe
Excellent, I tell students that we 'tell them lies or simplify things - you chose the turn of phrase'' and as they go through their education the we tell them 'slightly lesser lies or add more detail - again choose your turn of phrase' because the truth is often complicated. When they ask about quantum mechanics and I try to explain it to them they understand why we don't tell them about it earlier.
Dunning Kruger effect?
Yea, lies-to-children is an interesting educational concept explored in some depth in _The Collapse of Chaos_ [1994]. It has roots in Wittgenstein's Ladder. He said something to the effect that we give students ladders made of lies that they should throw away, but not before first climbing up them.
Well, simplifications, even gross ones, are not necessarily "lies." Lying implies malice or undue advantage to the lier.
It's not really lies. Every good teacher tells their students that they are explaining a simplified model when they do so. What you need to teach a student first is what a model is and why we work with models. Things are complicated, so of course you can't just jump into trying to understad them right away or learn the most detailed models we have from the get go. You have to get there slowly, step by step. And if you are just a normal person who isn't even interested in learning this kind of stuff, and most people aren't interested in learning science, then you wouldn't want to learn these details. Most people want simple answers. And even the simple answers are too much for most people.
In these comments you always find people bitching about school and why they didn't teach this stuff to them in school. Well, this is infotainment and the actual info here simply goes beyond the scope of school. Most of these people would have hated this subject if they actually had to properly understand it and explain it in an exam. Even if some of them are science buffs who like this stuff, most other highschool students would have hated this. This stuff is what university is for. If highschool taught everything, then you wouldn't need to go to uni. And a university student doesn't needs to learn every subject in all detail. A biologist has to learn physics, but they don't need it to the same level as a physicist. And a physicist who specializes in one field doesn't have to know every detail of another field. It's not possible to be an expert in everything. Some stuff we know in better detail, but most of what we know is superficial knowledge on a subject.
This video went into more detail, then the dumbed down stuff most people hear, but even this video doesn't explain every detail. Most viewers here would have hated it if she made a full boring lecture and even more so if there was an exam at the end. Most ironic are the people here who don't realize, that Sabine read a scientific textbook from a climate scientist to get this knowledge and act like she presented something controversial and in support of climate change denial.
I remember my chemistry teacher said that a lot. Lol I think lie is a bit harsh. We can't handle the truth.
I can tell you why I never understood it before. Nobody ever explained it like this before. Thank you very much for your excellent work
Did you ever make the effort to look for the proper scientific explanation. Ever read a scientific textbook on the subject. Or at least the Wiki article? Or did you rather think that you already knew what it was about because you had heard some dumbed down explanations and therefore didn't think of looking up how it actually works in detail. Also, as she said, she didn't explain every detail of it. that's not possible in a 20 minute video. You could of course delve into more details if you were interested and read some up to date scientific textbooks on climatology.
@@maythesciencebewithyou I mean, what can I say? You're absolutely right
@@maythesciencebewithyou Have you ever considered not being such a jerk?
@@mr.zafner8295 if that stung is because it hit a nerve for whatever reason, people will inevitably be rude but its up to oneself to take the truth and leave the rest be.
@@pom791 All of that is true as well, but it still doesn't justify your rude behavior.
This is a great clarification. I would like to see one aspect added. How can our core be so hot yet not effect the surface temperature?
I'm unclear on Whether GooglesCensorEmperor is allowing me any comments. It deleted 100% (several dozen) yesterday & today against 11 videos. It's the insulation of the rocks, same idea as the insulation you might have in the walls & roof space of your house, except made out of rocks (I just remembered, there's a house insulation called "rock wool") . An approximate good-enough calculation for the average rate of heat from liquid mantle (which is 1,300 degrees) moving through the lithosphere and the geologic strata of its crust coating is 1.8 w/m**2 / (degrees/metre-depth). Suppose if you go down a mine 1,000 metres and find it's 25 degrees warmer than surface then (degrees/metre-depth) is 0.025 degrees right ? So the heat flowing to surface from 1,000 metres down (and depleting the heat stored down at 1,000 metres) is 1.8 w/m**2 * 0.025 = 0.045 w/m**2. Compare that with Sun's energy absorbed which is 240.1 w/m**2 so its 5,300 times as much heat from the Sun getting to surface as heat from inside Earth getting to surface because of THE MASSIVE INSULATION PROVIDED BY ROCKS THAT ARE 150,000 FEET TO 820,000 FEET THICK. Try putting insulation 400,000 thick around the walls of your house and see whether that keeps it fairly cozy in winter. Average for Earth is 0.085 w/m**2 but average for Pacific Ocean is 0.12 w/m**2. There's a global pictorial of this minuscule heat at the surface (land or sea bed) in a talk by the worthless coal-oil-gas-money shill David Dilley at at You see that it's so small that scientists show it in tiny thousandths of a w/m**2. As you see, its big place is 0.15 w/m**2 maximum down the Atlantic central rift where the millions of "tiny volcanoes" are.
@@grindupBaker Got it--thanks
@@weekenddistractions Good bod. Out of 17,428 bods sloganeering pretending to ask questions since 2013 you're the 23rd to reply that they really were interested and not Trolling.
At 16:59 to 18:13 at th-cam.com/video/tK4LNIvlcCY/w-d-xo.html Earth pictorial showing the minuscule geothermal, including volcanic, heat around Earth averaging ~70 milliwatts/m**2 peaking with 150 milliwatts/m**2 down the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge spreading zone where the millions of tiny volcanoes are. Sun delivers 240,000 milliwatts/m**2 and Plimer shows 1 to 150 milliwatts/m**2. Present RESIDUAL-ONLY imbalance caused by humans is 1,970 milliwatts/m**2. Just the facts ma'am.
@@grindupBaker Not sure why you thought I was trolling. Seemed like this was needed for the whole story. Also missing was how much heat we are generating with our vehicles, heaters, A/Cs, etc. And how much heat is generated by volcanoes which provide a mechanism to belch out hot inner core material to the surface.
Thank you Sabine, here's a suggestion: what if you placed your improved diagram of the process at the start of the talk and then explained why, in terms of the arrows. That ways, your audience is following from your conclusion back to it's origin.
Yep
Some climate scientists lectures have hinted at how Stratospheric Cooling works but Sabine's new diagram/model makes the point much clearer. Thank you!
There was only one "SCIENTIST"
God of Thunder
th-cam.com/channels/hFXHYedYnjFo2ZbLwhiraA.html
Your explanations are always useful. This one's going to take a rewatch or two to fully get but it already makes sense. Your explanation of free will said in under 12 minutes what Sam Harris's tortured arguments could not in an hour long TED talk, and the physics framing made it easy for me to realize later on that it actually depends on the frame of reference of the observer (from your own perspective you do, because all your internal arguments and agonizing are part of the big machine and you can't take any short cuts to the decisions you make, which is experientially indistinguishable from free will, but to an omniscient external observer you don't, because it's all just particles colliding predictably if you have all information about an instant in time and a big enough computer).
This video is a form of global warming denial, but unintentionally so, because Sabine just doesn't understand this stuff. Extra CO2 just leads to a longer path-to-escape for each photon from earth, because of extra scattering. There are no complications, nothing else to say. The layers don't matter. There is no overlapping frequency. There is nothing. The whole video is a lie.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 she did not appear to be denying AGW, I understood that much.
@@tristan7216 She isn't denying global warming on purpose, she doesn't understand her role. She is having long discussions with pseudo-scientist deniers, who feed her 'facts', while she tries "rebutting" their 'facts' by taking them seriously and trying to answer them herself. She gets no help from a literature search, because these points are so foolish that no scientist who is an expert in the field would ever respond to such asinine insincere claims. She therefore ends up 'responding' to these claims by giving them WAY too much credit, and ends up propping up these lies indirectly, by seeming to acknowledge that they have some merit, when they have zero merit.
An example is the claim that there is a saturation of absorption at different wavelength. She responds to this 'fact' by saying "There is broadening of the wavelength range at the edges". What? WHAT? NO! Absolutely not! There is no saturation effect of scattering, the scattering just leads to a longer path of escape for each thermal photon into space. It makes no difference at what altitude the photon scatters, or what fraction of photons of that wavelength have scattered at that altitude! This point is false from start to finish, it is entirely made up by a person whose only job is propaganda and lying. But Sabine doesn't know how to rebut it, she can't say "but this is rubbish from start to finish!" because she is not an expert in anything.
This is her only purpose in life, this is why the right wing found this obscure person and raised her to minor stardom. Her only role is to be 'skeptical' toward climate scientists. Right wingers are scouring the dregs of academia for people like her, because they are desperate to 'rebut' climate science.
She deserves no empathy, just a bit of education on her role.
Great explanation.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the molar mass of CO2 and it is heavier than air (composed mainly of nitrogen, methane, oxygen - all have lower molar masses), therefore, how can CO2 end up in the higher atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas? Thanks.
Yours is lowest-level Parroted standard-meme drivel from the Dark Ages, amongst the stupidest of the stupid. This new Fake Question with furrowed brow of concern that you'all worthless Troll-Parrots wall paper with is very impressive though. Certainly had ME fooled.
Easy: the troposphere is constantly *mixed* by convection.
@@enderwiggin1113 That isn't Easy because the air isn't only going up because I think it goes down sometimes as well (not the exact same air at the exact same time). I bet you some even goes sideways now & then. So it's all well & good for some foreign showoff brainiac like you to say it's easy but not for the severely-mentally-challenged like "@SidneyAnand" and not for any of the other current versions of cheap Ruzzians A.I. Trolling computer programs either.
" because I think it goes down sometimes as well (not the exact same air at the exact same time). I bet you some even goes sideways now & then. "
Well, that's the *meaning* of 'mixing by convection'. It's a kind of circulation, going up, sideways and down again.
Huge fan of yours.
This explanaiton of the greenhouse effect gave me more insight. Thank you.
Another great video!
People just want simple answers but that's very rarely, how things work, in real life!
That animated figure at the end nailed it. All those diagrams with arrows in many books were all misleading!
I admit, I also misunderstood the whole thing, and i’m supposed to be an environmental scientist!
Thank you.
I complained (or tried to) on Realclimate July 2021 about all that crap everywhere about photons from the surface being "re-emitted" back to the surface, but Realclimate censored my complaint instead of posting it for discussion.
@@grindupBaker hmmm... somebody's trying to censor anything that may go against some kind of narrative I see, not quite sure what though. This is Galileo's history with the church all over again, albeit at a much more "tamed" and smaller scale. Nevertheless, still quite a concerning practice imo.
@@syrious_kash8268 -_- you mean do the one practice that is the basis when it comes to EVERYTHING politically/legally/criminally/morally disconcerting? Why didn't I think of that?! 😯
I'm sorry I know I didn't make it too clear in my comment, but I was trying to be somewhat vague though still hint at the fact that I understand what's happening to those with a trained eye when I mentioned "censor that goes against...[a] narrative." I mean, that is an oddly specific phrasing, don't you think? I wanted to help others who may not have figured this out yet to start understanding these things for themselves. People who typically frequent these science-focused videos may/may not be well-informed of politics sometimes; I was/am one of them for certain things. Hence, I know how it's like learning these things from that position. So fair enough if you think I'm an idiot; I think so too.
It's still a concerning practice that's rampant in many different facets of society. Though controlling narratives usually don't last long if the people who are being withheld information can recognize the signs and are not regular cultists of an ideology.
@@syrious_kash8268 er sorry about the sarcastic remarks. I was regretting it after replying
The book she sort of shows you is: Principles of Planetary Climate by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
Thank you! I appreciate the extra detail and extra effort.
Another great video, great work! I'll be sharing links to this video for sure.
One suggestion for the video production: it sounds like your mic setup is prone to have sibilance issues so I would recommend adding de-esser filter to your audio post-production setup.
Yes, and her glopotron needs to be set to 3 blingorfs, right now the furgo levels are spintinous.
@@Schell3092 Had we not fridged the spectacle, no toilets chessed in lattice lettuce. Blingorfs are sharply imagined.
Yessssss
Great explanation! Yep, even though I had a couple of years of college physics, I still understood this at the middle school level. Until today. This is one of those "must see" videos...
th-cam.com/video/nJL57RDFtzk/w-d-xo.html
When I learned that by raising the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by 1 degree C, the concentration of Water vapor goes up by about 7%, I found this fact astounding as so much of the weather is controlled by water vapor.
At nearly 1.5 degees, it's almost 10% more than the 1950s, and that also means the atmosphere is thinner...takes airplanes longer to takeoff, ask any pilot. 10% change in weather is an enormous effect.
One more who does not get the point that the catastrophe is something which is *going to happen* if we don't act now. And that a 10% difference *all over the world* is something entirely different than a 10% difference between two places on Earth.
At the current rate of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the pH of the ocean will be less than 8.0 by spring of 2053.....we will lose the entire food chain by then an all fish will be extinct much sooner.... ..any doubters should look at the data.