I love Tong’s presentations. He’s very considerate of his viewers, allows time in between his phrasing and seems to be very careful to keep the vocabulary at a simple though well defined level. A fine, fine teacher. 🌎
Thank you so much Prof. Yong. These videos are getting clearer and clearer every time. I now understand about 30% of what you say. I think what you are saying is extremely important.
Yeah i dont understand much either. 😂 i think current belief does not need to be correct. Human mistakenly believed earth is flat for several centuries. Same as populat climate model. Does not need to be correct and should open to scrutiny.
As a student working on LIthosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere relationships. your view of the atmosphere is crucial to my understanding of this relationship.
Thank you very much for your well presented and informative presentations. They urged me to refresh my mathematics and physics in order to understand climate physics and processes better.
Notice in the standard diagram, as depicted in the video, the Surface upward Radiation 398 - Transmission 40 = 358 While the atmospheric downward flux is supposed to be 342. Here we see a net radiative transfer between surface and atmosphere of 358 - 342 = 16 Wm-2. Notice also, the sensible heat adjustment of 20 Wm-2 is matching this approximately. Here is a double accounting, where in reality there can be no radiative discontinuity between surface and atmosphere after accounting for sensible heat. The sensible heat transfer involves all atmosphere molecules in contact with the surface. In other words, there cannot be simultaneously a net radiative transport between surface and atmosphere and the transport of sensible heat. This 20 Wm-2, or so, of sensible heat transport involving aerodynamic conductance is residing in the atmospheric layer closest to surface. The boundary layer. It is described nicely in the recent article by Fajber, www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217202120. The latent flux must be separated from the sensible heat. Only the latent flux provides a net transport away from the surface. The sensible heat is a direct warming influence as a consequence of the existence of atmosphere. The sensible heat, involving all atmospheric constituents, is providing a large proportion of the total warming effect of near-surface atmosphere. This 20 Wm-2, or so, must not be used in radiative greenhouse accounting.
I took a hot flask of liquid and considered how much of its rate of cooling was due to radiation and how much to convection and conduction. Put a outer container around the flask and create a vacuum between the flask and the atmosphere. The vacuum will not affect the flow of radiation which can cross the vacuum heat the outer wall and re-radiate but it will eliminate the loss of heat by conduction and convection. If radiation is the main method by which the flask cools then it will lose temperature much as before. If conduction and convection are the main method then it will cool much more slowly. Fortunately we have created the experimental equipment and vacuum flasks are readily available in stores. I cannot see why the surface will be cooled any differently than the flask. Am I wrong. Based on this, the IPPC model is clearly wrong. It just seems too obvious!
Because you didn't account for the emissivity of the vacuum flask. If the flask is made of metal like the ones they make for coffee, it has a very low emissivity. Emissivity goes from 0 to 1, metals are extremely low, around 0.03 to 0.06 but human skin and water and paint are above 0.9 so paint your inner container with black paint. Also the outer container has to be non- reflective, you can't use metal or mylar. It has to absorb the radiation so it needs a black inner wall. Good luck.
@@hyzercreek Are you not agreeing with me. If the original container was metal then as you say it's loss through radiation is low, the main loss is through convection of heat from the metal surface. Eliminating this convection by putting a vacuum around the original container allows the loss by radiation to continue but eliminates the loss by convection. You could paint all the surfaces black to increase the loss by radiation but the result would still be that convection pays the greater role in cooling.
@@wrath276 No, conduction in air is very low, the thermal coefficient of conduction for air is 0.025 watts per square meter per degree K. That means it takes 40 degrees K or C to conduct just one watt, which is extremely small. Air is a good insulator, not as good as a vacuum but good. By comparison the coefficient for water is 0.5 and plastic or wood is 1 and copper is 350
@@hyzercreek so why does my conservatory warm up so fast when I stop all the air flow through it. Still air is a poor conductor but a moving flow of air driven by convection can be very effective. Why use a fan to cool a radiator when radiation is insufficient by itself? Ever heard of a cooling breeze on a hot day? ??
@@wrath276 The radiator heats up the air and you remove the hot air with a fan so the radiator heats up new air. The difference in temperature between the radiator and the air is what causes it to radiate. If the air becomes the same temperature as the radiator, the radiator doesn't radiate at all. It has to be hotter than the air to radiate to it. The fan replaces hot air with cooler air. Same as cool breeze. In still air your body radiates to the air around it and warms it up. The breeze removes the hot air around you. If air were a good conductor you wouldn't need a breeze, the air would just conduct all the heat away, like water does when you are in the pool. You don't need a fan in the pool, the water conducts it away. Water is a 20 times better conductor than air (0.5 compared to 0.025). The fact that you need a fan in air means that air is a poor conductor.
Thank you once again Dr. Zhong. The 180 degree phase shift for the CO2 emission region is just jaw-dropping. Perhaps I can finally begin to understand OLR. Do you think I could claim a 180 degree phase shift in speed cameras, in the 30 to 60 miles per hour region? Do you think the judge would buy it?
7:45 the video incorrectly asserts that it violates the laws of thermodynamics for the thermal radiation emitted downward to the surface to be 63% while 37% is emitted upward. What “law of thermodynamics” is this alleged to violate?? If you have an optical medium which is colder on one side than the other, then OF COURSE less thermal radiation will be emitted by the cold side (in this case the top of the troposphere) than by the warm side (in this case the bottom of the troposphere). It would violate the laws of thermodynamics for that to NOT happen. If you had an iron rod that’s red hot on one end and in an ice bath at the other end, wouldn’t you expect the red hot end to be emitting more thermal radiation than the cold end? Given that the atmosphere (a) has a temperature gradient, and (b) is nearly opaque to thermal radiation, why would you expect its thermal radiation emissions to behave much differently than that iron rod? Expecting equal emissions in both directions would be non-physical.
You are careless. Arrehenius assumed the equal emissions in both directions, not me. It seems you have been confused by different types of temperatures in physics, namely the thermal temperature and radidation equavilent temperature.
BTW, you failed to comprehend the two cumulative flux numbers. Like many others, you might have thought the atmosphere emits at just one particular "emission altitude", which is illusion and completely wrong. Infrared absorbers can emit in any locations in the atmosphere in all direction, but only the upward photons have chance to escape to space. One must be mad to accept the hot surface could be heated up by CO2 above the troposphere. Wake up, young man.
@@yongtuitionI'm just a novice at this, but I've been looking into the atmosphere of Venus a little, and it seems to me that it's even more constrained for photons than Earth because of the high pressure which will never be relieved unless the planet somehow began to spin like Earth or Mars. I reckon that it's Venus's lack of spin that maintains the strong isotropic pressure and a consequence of this is a lack of convection, meaning that there is no way for heat to escape from the surface except for conduction of heat & transmission of sound throughout the liquid co2 part of the lower atmosphere & eventually to radiative emission from the clouds. From what I see, none of this is related to the notion of radiative greenhouse effect on Venus which is often invoked by mainstream climate change educators. - Is that about right?
Sir, I wonder if you could answer this question? Historically an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has lagged an increase in air temperature. This is easy to comprehend as carbon dioxide is less soluble in sea water at high temperatures. We know at the present time carbon dioxide concentration in air is increasing. We also know that the quantity of man made carbon dioxide is increasing on an annual basis. We also know that the global mean air temperature is increasing (at about 1.5 degrees C per century?). Is it just possible that the current carbon dioxide concentration levels are leading rather than lagging the current rise in air temperature? If this is the case then could it be that the current increase in carbon dioxide concentration is playing a big part in rising air temperatures?
Previously, the only source of extra atmospheric CO2 was warming oceans (from some cause other than CO2), hence the lag. Today, the bulk of extra CO2 is coming from long-buried carboniferous material (fossil fuels), so the CO2 increase will precede any temperature increase (if there is one). This still leaves open the question of whether the extra CO2 can cause an increase in atmospheric temperature or whether something else is causing a temperature increase (if there is one).
this video is the proof that removing dislike count is a bad idea on the part of TH-cam. Dislike count could actually tell the ciewer that thie points raised in this video are stupid. Like atmosphere and surface are not single layer.. In the same was water and ice on it are not the same layer.
Hello prof. Tuition. Actually, there is a downward IR flux when measured at the Earth surface : - it is mainly composed by the IR wave bands where H20 and CO2 are active. Very little comes in the 8 - 12 microns band (except for the O3 emission at 10.5 microns). This flux have been measured for example at Rostov-on-Don in 1963 (S.V. Ashcheulov & D.B. Styro, in : Radiation in the atmosphere - Kondratyev 1969). Its value (outside the 8-12 microns spectrum) is about the same as the expected upward flux estimated by Stefan law (perhaps somewhat smaller). This is consistent with the Earth energy balance (see for instance NASA 2009) in which the difference of the 2 fluxes (which is the radiative energy transfer between the ground and the atmosphere) is about 17 W/m² : - so the atmosphere absorbs 17 W/m² from what is emitted by the surface. On the other hand, those same gases active in the IR spectrum (H2O, CO2, ...) emit some 170 W/m² into space. This shows that active gases in the IR spectrum, with convection / advection, cool the atmosphere by 170 - 17 = 153W/m². The GHG hypothesis is completely flawed : - active gases in the IR spectrum DO NOT trap energy in the atmosphere. It is the opposite : they globally cool it by radiating into space.
Thank you for your detailed description. I will read the references mentioned. The "downward IR flux" could be caused by clouds but should be well below 320Wm-2. Pyrgeometers, used to measure longwave radiation and recently promoted by Wil Happer, are all "calibrated" to give the numbers what they wnat.
@@yongtuition thank you for your answer. Indeed, calibration seems to be a mess. Some more information : - the measurement of the downward flux is presented p. 618 - 619 in the Kondratyev book. - it shows that in the wave bands where there are active gases in the IR spectrum, there is little difference between this flux and the flux of a black body at the observed air temperature. This is particularly true in the CO2 15 microns wave band. This may show that the radiative energy transfer (at least in the 15 microns wave band) from the ground to the atmosphere is very small or even zero and thus, CO2 absorbs almost no energy from what is emitted by the ground. The remaining question is "why the dip in the 15 microns region in the OTA flux ?". Knowing that this 15µm wave band is in the H2O absorption / emission band, may be some 15 µm photons are absorbed by H2O and then re-emitted (after a collision or spontaneously) in other wave-bands ... I can send you copies of the 618 and 619 pages if necessary since the book is not easy to find. Have a good day.
I am impressed with your work. Thank you for these nice presentations. Are you familiar with Ferenc Miskolczi's work? If so, could you please comment on Miskolczi's work.
Jong, I am a great admirer of your work and methods, thank you for all you are doing. My question relates to your final point, the defect that the atmosphere is treated as a separate layer, and the truth is that the terrestrial IR radiation at ground level is 0 because the temperature of the ground and air are the same so there is no radiative transfer. Did I get that right? If so, how does the atmosphere of mainly nitrogen / oxygen gain heat? Does it absorb it directly from the incoming solar radiation or are these main gases unable to absorb sw radiation, therefore they absorb by conduction from the ground at the boundary layer and are immediately in stasis due to the powerful nature of conduction ? If my question is not misconceived, my second question relates to the IR radiation. Does ir radiation rely on a temperature difference between the radiating and absorbing elements, and how does this work where IR radiation is emitted to space?
Thank you. Here are my answers backward. 1. The outer space temperature is close to 4K, so the temperature difference is huge. 2. The atmosphere does absorb shortwave radiation from the sun and the reflection from the surface. 3. Nitrogen and oxygen gases can be heated up by convection and conduction. For example, I routinely used warm nitrogen gas to remove moisture in the cooling system before doing liquid helium temperature experiments. Another source for heating up air in space is indirectly thourgh IR: the IR absorbers absorb and then release the absorbed energy as the thermal energy, namely the sum of the total molecular kinetic energy.
@@yongtuition I found the clarification I sought in the discarded slides 10 and 11 around 716 seconds in your presentation. I find your work and that of Tom Shula to be key and supported by empirical observation. I applaud. Have your postulations in slide 11 been challenged by anyone? They seem to be a grand rebuttal and replacement of the GHG theories so they cannot be accommodated in that theory so winner will take all.
Very interesting - I suspect the descussion dips in to my realm of comprehension and then up again .. but I have no problem watching pieces over a few times to help grasp the ideas.. Thanks. When the comment is made that it was a mistake to seporate the air from the surface I am reminded of some other paper where the presenter defined a thermosphere as the air and into the depth of the soil and water where the Sun light makes a daily temperature difference - calculate the mass of the air plus the thermally affected solid stuff .. then figuring that the center of mass for this thermosphere considering how heavy and dense the dirt part is was roughly 2 (?..20?? 200??) meters above the surface ( my memory is shaky here) that point is the thermal center for the earth for calculating the global surface temp.. once that was fixed then there is no need for green house gas effect to explain temps.
If there is no IR emission from the earths surface, how do you explain the OLR emissions in the atmospheric window and outside CO2 bands, that appear to follow the Planck Function emission at 288K?
@@scottjones6921 Good question. Can You see any details of earth from space near infrared (10μm-12μm)? You only see regions of more or less heat by satellite. In the visible region You can see all details of the earth when its reflect the sun light. I suppose, you can only see the hot aer over the surface throw the band near 10μm.
I watch all this scientist's explanation of things and am eager to understand, but somehow I'm never able to follow. I have a science degree and yet cannot follow his explanations for the life of me. Surely they can be made more clear somehow.
I am trying to understand the color diagrams in point 20. I'm guessing the first says all that is absorbed must be equal to forced heating, and all that is transmitted goes "out". The blank line between indicates no emissivity ... no atmosphere? I'm unclear on this. The second shows more being absorbed, and less being transmitted, resulting in some emissivity and its transmission by the atmosphere. The third seems to be a variation of the second where more of the absorbtion results in more emissivity. The final one there is no transmission, all emissivity going out via OLR. Can you fine tune my picture here and talk about what each of these corresponds to in a little bit of detail? I know I'm not grasping this here. Finally, I can see that O and F are constants, but it looks like it's because we've picked a fixed temperature here corresponding to some "correct" or current "earth system temperature". Just talk me through this slide.
Thank you for the comments. Here are the answers backward. 1. Yes. I assumed the surface temperature is fixed. 2. The 4 diagrams illustrate the forcing (F) is independent of the IR absorption A, because the upward atmospheric emission to space (E) is a variable that increases with A. When we feel hot, we spontaneously sweat. Similarly, when the earth feel hot, it emits more to outer space. It seems unintelligent to state the earth is incapable of regulating its surface temperature based on the greenhouse effect.
12:00 Zeroth law of Thermodynamics made of three close connected systems; A, B and C law based on pure logic, if A temp equal to C temp and they all close together thus B also have same temp. Earth ground is A energetic system, atmosphere which touches ground is B and who is C energetic system, Sun ? It not makes sense. If argument that ground over day not radiates EMW to space it is true, it sounds legit, but at night temp. drops anyway. Sahara desert without water to store immense amount of energy radiates energy back to space that been torched by sun at day time, hot ground capacity is not enough to keep nights warm. In Sahara sometimes drop to -3 Celsius. In Sahara desert biggest threat is cold at night.
Interestng. However: i m Not a researcher. Not a physicist. Not a mathematician. My question is simple: so you agree with recent times average increases of earth s temperature? If so are you saying it’s caused by other then rising co2 in the atmosphere? And Earth will regulate it temperature over time naturally via emission of heat into space?
There seems no evidence that the global mean surface temperature increases. What you heard or saw is the so-called anomaly variation, i.e. the statistically weighted mean temperatures measured at finite number of places near the surface. Yes, the earth is capable of regulating its surface temperature.
Thank you. The media is a bad place to try to get at the truth. However for the laymen the science and math is incomprehensible on the other hand. I find your videos interesting and I can follow small parts of it.
Hi Dr. Zhong. Thanks so much for your videos. I am not a scientist, and can barely grasp what you are relaying. Would it be possible to summarize in simple terms what you are saying about C02 and infared radiation? I think you are saying that C02 can't absorb very much IR. Why is that? Are you saying C02 is not a greenhouse gas? Are you saying there is no greenhouse effect? Why is that? And why is there a scarcity of IR? These seems hugely important and I would just like to understand. Thanks so much.
Thank you comment. In short, the greenhouse effece hypothesis was proposed to explain why the surface is 33K colder than 255K. Hence the 33K is also called as Greenhouse effect type 1. But, the correct calaculation for surface temperature would be 278K without IR absorbers, water vaper, CO2 etc, that are called "greenhouse gases" by many people. In fact, the mean surface temperature 288K can be maintaind by the presence of the atmosphere, just as the air temperature in an air pump is close to the internal surface temperature of the cylinder. Therefore, the greenhouse effect hypothesis is both unnecessary and incorrect, and GHSs, including CO2, should be correctly called asd IR absorbers. The IR absorbers play a role in regulating the outgoing IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere to stablize the surface temperature, rather than heating it up by IR.
Not convinced about zero radiation how would you explain the view from space it shows clearly the terrestrial details in visible light, but like your thought processes. it is very hard to find the true path after being led down the wrong one.
The visible image of the surface is due to shortwave reflection. Indeed, without invoking the zeroth law at the isothermic interface, it is hard to understand the upward infrared rays from the atmosphere with the surface at its bottom.
9:50 You *are* wrong. There is no requirement of having a vacuum above the emitting surface. In fact, the molecules of the surface are not affected at all by the atmosphere at all. Within the absorption bands, some radiation is absorbed and randomly emitted, such that about half is re-emitted downwards. But this is only part of the radiation. Within the blackbody radiation envelope of the ground, a lot of wavelengths are hardly attenuated at all by the atmosphere, so clearly there is thermal radiation. The temperature difference between the surface and the boundary layer is not zero. If it were, there would never be any heat transfer; neither convective or radiative. This is obviously false. An atmospheric temperature curve that reaches zero at the ground is just a model; a convenient approximation for some types of calculations. Since nearly all the heat in the atmosphere comes from the surface, the surface is obviously warmer than their air. The atmosphere is never in thermal equilibrium with the surface
Around 11:50, you discuss how surplus energy is radiated back into space but you neglect to mention that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere changes what that "surplus" threshold. The addition of certain gasses into the atmosphere increases the amount of energy the atmosphere can absorb and this has a direct effect on the temperatures we measure in the atmosphere. You can make double-talk statements about how Black Body Radiation assumes perfect absorption of energy with no reflectivity and you would be correct in that statement because it's just a concept on paper but you are wrong in your subtle implication that climate scientists aren't fully aware of the Earth's reflectivity which involves atmospheric density, cloud cover, snow cover, vegetation ocean surface and depth, etc. The hard fact is that there was a measurable increase in temperature since the Industrial Revolution and we have not seen any evidence that this increasing temperature trend will end -- it has only become more dramatic over time. You can talk yourself into circles about why we shouldn't be concerned about this but completely ignoring this very basic set of evidence that shows temperatures increasing is simply dishonesty or incompetence. So what exactly are you saying? Summarize your perspective in one or two sentences. Here is an example summarized argument that climate change is a real thing: Ever since Humans discovered fire, direct measurements and geological analog measurements of the Earth's atmospheric temperature has produced data that suggests the atmospheric temperature at sea level is increasing. Now summarize your stance using the same methodology and you'll be able to engage people in a meaningful conversation. Until Mr Yong does that, the words out of his mouth are meaningless because they go nowhere. For example, if we are measuring an increase in atmospheric temperature, then how would that be changed by any measurement strategy of the Earth's black body radiation? We're already measuring an increase -- so besides understanding our ecosystem better, the amount of energy we are radiating out into space is irrelevant because we are worried about the radiation that DOES NOT get radiated back into space -- this is the energy that increases the temperature here on Earth. It's a really simple set of evidence with a single graph -- there's no need to go cherry-picking papers and calling out perceived inaccuracies that have no impact on the core problem that the temperature is increasing.
Kevin, maximum temperature records are not keeping up with increases in CO2. Existing records of maximum temperatures go back 50-170 years ago when CO2 was 290ppm. High record temperatures are not necessarily associated with high CO2 levels e.g. where I live the record is 43.6C obtained in 1923 at a CO2 level of 310ppm. Random checks of the raw data across the globe show that there is no universal increase in maximum temperature despite CO2 advancing from 290-420ppm. The small town of Lytton in BC recorded a Canadian record of 49C just before a forest fire tore through. It was acknowledged as a 100 year event due to a combination of circumstances not related to climate change. The BBC stated that Athens would break its record of 47.7C last summer but on 23 July 23 it reached only 43.9C. The BBC failed to mention that because they have been trying to make people think that Europe is boiling.
@@yasi4877 your cherry-picked examples are meaningless. You need to look at the overall statistics and the trend across many data points over time. Thermometers have existed for 400 years and there are numerous geological proxies that estimate these temperatures over thousands of years -- the best one being isotopic analysis of ice cores. The fractional comparison between Oxygen and Hydrogen isotopes is a function of temperature. Measuring these in thin slices within the ice cores tells us what the average temperature was for that area that year.
@@Kevin-ht1ox I'm not talking about average temperature deduced from proxy data that is subjective as to analysis and interpretation. You know very well I’m not cherry picking. There are A-Z lists of maximum temperature records in towns and cities across the globe. My interest began with those closest to me. Go through those and you find most date back 50-170 years when CO2 was as low as 290ppm. They remain record temperatures from long ago even as CO2 levels have risen from 290 - 420ppm. This is empirical evidence. It factually shows that CO2 has not been a driver of temperature. It's undeniable. I would put it to you that an explanation for the above is that any warming from CO2 is historic and its' effects flat at higher levels, 400-800ppm as per Happer and his Thermal Emission & Absorption chart illustration. Dr Song can tell us more about that. The prestigious Musee de Histoire in Paris has a pre-history section with tools and relics plus a plaque on the wall reading “6000 years ago the climate was warmer than today (+2C Greenland ice cores to give it a number), forests flourished, animals thrived and Mesolithic era hunter-gatherers were able to establish viable, stable settlements along the river”. This was a climate optimum. Natural influences appear to be taking us into another climate optimum.
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Grand Final - EDG vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WvObMc9VelI/mqdefault.jpg)
I love Tong’s presentations. He’s very considerate of his viewers, allows time in between his phrasing and seems to be very careful to keep the vocabulary at a simple though well defined level.
A fine, fine teacher. 🌎
He offers an educational experience to others who can follow it. A super intelligent.
After watching again I'm convinced, this is the most understandable description of our atmospheric thermal dynamic i have seen thank you sir.
Your Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis consisting of the ENTIRE atmosphere is what we were taught in Middle School in the U.S. in the early 70's.
Thank you so much Prof. Yong. These videos are getting clearer and clearer every time. I now understand about 30% of what you say. I think what you are saying is extremely important.
Yeah i dont understand much either. 😂 i think current belief does not need to be correct. Human mistakenly believed earth is flat for several centuries. Same as populat climate model. Does not need to be correct and should open to scrutiny.
As a student working on LIthosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere relationships. your view of the atmosphere is crucial to my understanding of this relationship.
This is the only documentation needed to nullify the Man-made CO2- Greenhouse Gas Effect Hypothosis.
Ned Nikolov has a great YT vid debunking this.
Thank you very much for your well presented and informative presentations. They urged me to refresh my mathematics and physics in order to understand climate physics and processes better.
Notice in the standard diagram, as depicted in the video, the Surface upward Radiation 398 - Transmission 40 = 358
While the atmospheric downward flux is supposed to be 342.
Here we see a net radiative transfer between surface and atmosphere of 358 - 342 = 16 Wm-2.
Notice also, the sensible heat adjustment of 20 Wm-2 is matching this approximately.
Here is a double accounting, where in reality there can be no radiative discontinuity between surface and atmosphere after accounting for sensible heat. The sensible heat transfer involves all atmosphere molecules in contact with the surface.
In other words, there cannot be simultaneously a net radiative transport between surface and atmosphere and the transport of sensible heat.
This 20 Wm-2, or so, of sensible heat transport involving aerodynamic conductance is residing in the atmospheric layer closest to surface. The boundary layer.
It is described nicely in the recent article by Fajber, www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217202120. The latent flux must be separated from the sensible heat. Only the latent flux provides a net transport away from the surface. The sensible heat is a direct warming influence as a consequence of the existence of atmosphere.
The sensible heat, involving all atmospheric constituents, is providing a large proportion of the total warming effect of near-surface atmosphere. This 20 Wm-2, or so, must not be used in radiative greenhouse accounting.
In essence, convection can make mass transfer, including water in different phases, apart from heat transfer whilst radication cannot.
I took a hot flask of liquid and considered how much of its rate of cooling was due to radiation and how much to convection and conduction. Put a outer container around the flask and create a vacuum between the flask and the atmosphere. The vacuum will not affect the flow of radiation which can cross the vacuum heat the outer wall and re-radiate but it will eliminate the loss of heat by conduction and convection. If radiation is the main method by which the flask cools then it will lose temperature much as before. If conduction and convection are the main method then it will cool much more slowly. Fortunately we have created the experimental equipment and vacuum flasks are readily available in stores. I cannot see why the surface will be cooled any differently than the flask. Am I wrong. Based on this, the IPPC model is clearly wrong. It just seems too obvious!
Because you didn't account for the emissivity of the vacuum flask. If the flask is made of metal like the ones they make for coffee, it has a very low emissivity. Emissivity goes from 0 to 1, metals are extremely low, around 0.03 to 0.06 but human skin and water and paint are above 0.9 so paint your inner container with black paint. Also the outer container has to be non- reflective, you can't use metal or mylar. It has to absorb the radiation so it needs a black inner wall. Good luck.
@@hyzercreek Are you not agreeing with me. If the original container was metal then as you say it's loss through radiation is low, the main loss is through convection of heat from the metal surface. Eliminating this convection by putting a vacuum around the original container allows the loss by radiation to continue but eliminates the loss by convection. You could paint all the surfaces black to increase the loss by radiation but the result would still be that convection pays the greater role in cooling.
@@wrath276 No, conduction in air is very low, the thermal coefficient of conduction for air is 0.025 watts per square meter per degree K. That means it takes 40 degrees K or C to conduct just one watt, which is extremely small. Air is a good insulator, not as good as a vacuum but good. By comparison the coefficient for water is 0.5 and plastic or wood is 1 and copper is 350
@@hyzercreek so why does my conservatory warm up so fast when I stop all the air flow through it. Still air is a poor conductor but a moving flow of air driven by convection can be very effective. Why use a fan to cool a radiator when radiation is insufficient by itself? Ever heard of a cooling breeze on a hot day?
??
@@wrath276 The radiator heats up the air and you remove the hot air with a fan so the radiator heats up new air. The difference in temperature between the radiator and the air is what causes it to radiate. If the air becomes the same temperature as the radiator, the radiator doesn't radiate at all. It has to be hotter than the air to radiate to it. The fan replaces hot air with cooler air. Same as cool breeze. In still air your body radiates to the air around it and warms it up. The breeze removes the hot air around you. If air were a good conductor you wouldn't need a breeze, the air would just conduct all the heat away, like water does when you are in the pool. You don't need a fan in the pool, the water conducts it away. Water is a 20 times better conductor than air (0.5 compared to 0.025). The fact that you need a fan in air means that air is a poor conductor.
Thank you once again Dr. Zhong. The 180 degree phase shift for the CO2 emission region is just jaw-dropping. Perhaps I can finally begin to understand OLR. Do you think I could claim a 180 degree phase shift in speed cameras, in the 30 to 60 miles per hour region? Do you think the judge would buy it?
7:45 the video incorrectly asserts that it violates the laws of thermodynamics for the thermal radiation emitted downward to the surface to be 63% while 37% is emitted upward. What “law of thermodynamics” is this alleged to violate?? If you have an optical medium which is colder on one side than the other, then OF COURSE less thermal radiation will be emitted by the cold side (in this case the top of the troposphere) than by the warm side (in this case the bottom of the troposphere). It would violate the laws of thermodynamics for that to NOT happen. If you had an iron rod that’s red hot on one end and in an ice bath at the other end, wouldn’t you expect the red hot end to be emitting more thermal radiation than the cold end? Given that the atmosphere (a) has a temperature gradient, and (b) is nearly opaque to thermal radiation, why would you expect its thermal radiation emissions to behave much differently than that iron rod? Expecting equal emissions in both directions would be non-physical.
You are careless. Arrehenius assumed the equal emissions in both directions, not me. It seems you have been confused by different types of temperatures in physics, namely the thermal temperature and radidation equavilent temperature.
BTW, you failed to comprehend the two cumulative flux numbers. Like many others, you might have thought the atmosphere emits at just one particular "emission altitude", which is illusion and completely wrong. Infrared absorbers can emit in any locations in the atmosphere in all direction, but only the upward photons have chance to escape to space. One must be mad to accept the hot surface could be heated up by CO2 above the troposphere. Wake up, young man.
@@yongtuitionI'm just a novice at this, but I've been looking into the atmosphere of Venus a little, and it seems to me that it's even more constrained for photons than Earth because of the high pressure which will never be relieved unless the planet somehow began to spin like Earth or Mars.
I reckon that it's Venus's lack of spin
that maintains the strong isotropic pressure and a consequence of this is a lack of convection, meaning that there is no way for heat to escape from the surface except for conduction of heat & transmission of sound throughout the liquid co2 part of the lower atmosphere & eventually to radiative emission from the clouds.
From what I see, none of this is related to the notion of radiative greenhouse effect on Venus which is often invoked by mainstream climate change educators.
- Is that about right?
Sir, I wonder if you could answer this question? Historically an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has lagged an increase in air temperature. This is easy to comprehend as carbon dioxide is less soluble in sea water at high temperatures. We know at the present time carbon dioxide concentration in air is increasing. We also know that the quantity of man made carbon dioxide is increasing on an annual basis. We also know that the global mean air temperature is increasing (at about 1.5 degrees C per century?). Is it just possible that the current carbon dioxide concentration levels are leading rather than lagging the current rise in air temperature? If this is the case then could it be that the current increase in carbon dioxide concentration is playing a big part in rising air temperatures?
Previously, the only source of extra atmospheric CO2 was warming oceans (from some cause other than CO2), hence the lag. Today, the bulk of extra CO2 is coming from long-buried carboniferous material (fossil fuels), so the CO2 increase will precede any temperature increase (if there is one). This still leaves open the question of whether the extra CO2 can cause an increase in atmospheric temperature or whether something else is causing a temperature increase (if there is one).
The role of CO2 is a really vexed question. Its a great pity that real science can't properly answer the question.@@fredneecher1746
this video is the proof that removing dislike count is a bad idea on the part of TH-cam. Dislike count could actually tell the ciewer that thie points raised in this video are stupid. Like atmosphere and surface are not single layer.. In the same was water and ice on it are not the same layer.
Hello prof. Tuition.
Actually, there is a downward IR flux when measured at the Earth surface :
- it is mainly composed by the IR wave bands where H20 and CO2 are active. Very little comes in the 8 - 12 microns band (except for the O3 emission at 10.5 microns). This flux have been measured for example at Rostov-on-Don in 1963 (S.V. Ashcheulov & D.B. Styro, in : Radiation in the atmosphere - Kondratyev 1969). Its value (outside the 8-12 microns spectrum) is about the same as the expected upward flux estimated by Stefan law (perhaps somewhat smaller).
This is consistent with the Earth energy balance (see for instance NASA 2009) in which the difference of the 2 fluxes (which is the radiative energy transfer between the ground and the atmosphere) is about 17 W/m² :
- so the atmosphere absorbs 17 W/m² from what is emitted by the surface. On the other hand, those same gases active in the IR spectrum (H2O, CO2, ...) emit some 170 W/m² into space. This shows that active gases in the IR spectrum, with convection / advection, cool the atmosphere by 170 - 17 = 153W/m².
The GHG hypothesis is completely flawed :
- active gases in the IR spectrum DO NOT trap energy in the atmosphere. It is the opposite : they globally cool it by radiating into space.
Thank you for your detailed description. I will read the references mentioned. The "downward IR flux" could be caused by clouds but should be well below 320Wm-2. Pyrgeometers, used to measure longwave radiation and recently promoted by Wil Happer, are all "calibrated" to give the numbers what they wnat.
@@yongtuition thank you for your answer. Indeed, calibration seems to be a mess. Some more information :
- the measurement of the downward flux is presented p. 618 - 619 in the Kondratyev book.
- it shows that in the wave bands where there are active gases in the IR spectrum, there is little difference between this flux and the flux of a black body at the observed air temperature. This is particularly true in the CO2 15 microns wave band. This may show that the radiative energy transfer (at least in the 15 microns wave band) from the ground to the atmosphere is very small or even zero and thus, CO2 absorbs almost no energy from what is emitted by the ground.
The remaining question is "why the dip in the 15 microns region in the OTA flux ?". Knowing that this 15µm wave band is in the H2O absorption / emission band, may be some 15 µm photons are absorbed by H2O and then re-emitted (after a collision or spontaneously) in other wave-bands ...
I can send you copies of the 618 and 619 pages if necessary since the book is not easy to find.
Have a good day.
I am impressed with your work. Thank you for these nice presentations. Are you familiar with Ferenc Miskolczi's work? If so, could you please comment on Miskolczi's work.
Jong, I am a great admirer of your work and methods, thank you for all you are doing. My question relates to your final point, the defect that the atmosphere is treated as a separate layer, and the truth is that the terrestrial IR radiation at ground level is 0 because the temperature of the ground and air are the same so there is no radiative transfer. Did I get that right? If so, how does the atmosphere of mainly nitrogen / oxygen gain heat? Does it absorb it directly from the incoming solar radiation or are these main gases unable to absorb sw radiation, therefore they absorb by conduction from the ground at the boundary layer and are immediately in stasis due to the powerful nature of conduction ? If my question is not misconceived, my second question relates to the IR radiation. Does ir radiation rely on a temperature difference between the radiating and absorbing elements, and how does this work where IR radiation is emitted to space?
Thank you. Here are my answers backward.
1. The outer space temperature is close to 4K, so the temperature difference is huge.
2. The atmosphere does absorb shortwave radiation from the sun and the reflection from the surface.
3. Nitrogen and oxygen gases can be heated up by convection and conduction. For example, I routinely used warm nitrogen gas to remove moisture in the cooling system before doing liquid helium temperature experiments.
Another source for heating up air in space is indirectly thourgh IR: the IR absorbers absorb and then release the absorbed energy as the thermal energy, namely the sum of the total molecular kinetic energy.
@@yongtuition I found the clarification I sought in the discarded slides 10 and 11 around 716 seconds in your presentation. I find your work and that of Tom Shula to be key and supported by empirical observation. I applaud. Have your postulations in slide 11 been challenged by anyone? They seem to be a grand rebuttal and replacement of the GHG theories so they cannot be accommodated in that theory so winner will take all.
Very interesting - I suspect the descussion dips in to my realm of comprehension and then up again .. but I have no problem watching pieces over a few times to help grasp the ideas.. Thanks.
When the comment is made that it was a mistake to seporate the air from the surface I am reminded of some other paper where the presenter defined a thermosphere as the air and into the depth of the soil and water where the Sun light makes a daily temperature difference - calculate the mass of the air plus the thermally affected solid stuff .. then figuring that the center of mass for this thermosphere considering how heavy and dense the dirt part is was roughly 2 (?..20?? 200??) meters above the surface ( my memory is shaky here) that point is the thermal center for the earth for calculating the global surface temp.. once that was fixed then there is no need for green house gas effect to explain temps.
My money's on constipation.
The subtitles, do not always agree with the spoken word, and 21:19, ruin the diagram.
Poynting good at pointing 😅
Alright, I'm getting it. I Am Getting IT!
Backgorund Van Meer! I like this guy just for that fact.
I love your new paper. Very simple and well explained.
If there is no IR emission from the earths surface, how do you explain the OLR emissions in the atmospheric window and outside CO2 bands, that appear to follow the Planck Function emission at 288K?
@@scottjones6921 Good question. Can You see any details of earth from space near infrared (10μm-12μm)? You only see regions of more or less heat by satellite. In the visible region You can see all details of the earth when its reflect the sun light. I suppose, you can only see the hot aer over the surface throw the band near 10μm.
I watch all this scientist's explanation of things and am eager to understand, but somehow I'm never able to follow. I have a science degree and yet cannot follow his explanations for the life of me. Surely they can be made more clear somehow.
Please publish!
I am trying to understand the color diagrams in point 20.
I'm guessing the first says all that is absorbed must be equal to forced heating, and all that is transmitted goes "out". The blank line between indicates no emissivity ... no atmosphere? I'm unclear on this.
The second shows more being absorbed, and less being transmitted, resulting in some emissivity and its transmission by the atmosphere.
The third seems to be a variation of the second where more of the absorbtion results in more emissivity.
The final one there is no transmission, all emissivity going out via OLR.
Can you fine tune my picture here and talk about what each of these corresponds to in a little bit of detail? I know I'm not grasping this here.
Finally, I can see that O and F are constants, but it looks like it's because we've picked a fixed temperature here corresponding to some "correct" or current "earth system temperature".
Just talk me through this slide.
Thank you for the comments. Here are the answers backward.
1. Yes. I assumed the surface temperature is fixed.
2. The 4 diagrams illustrate the forcing (F) is independent of the IR absorption A, because the upward atmospheric emission to space (E) is a variable that increases with A.
When we feel hot, we spontaneously sweat. Similarly, when the earth feel hot, it emits more to outer space. It seems unintelligent to state the earth is incapable of regulating its surface temperature based on the greenhouse effect.
12:00 Zeroth law of Thermodynamics made of three close connected systems; A, B and C law based on pure logic, if A temp equal to C temp and they all close together thus B also have same temp. Earth ground is A energetic system, atmosphere which touches ground is B and who is C energetic system, Sun ? It not makes sense. If argument that ground over day not radiates EMW to space it is true, it sounds legit, but at night temp. drops anyway. Sahara desert without water to store immense amount of energy radiates energy back to space that been torched by sun at day time, hot ground capacity is not enough to keep nights warm. In Sahara sometimes drop to -3 Celsius. In Sahara desert biggest threat is cold at night.
Interestng. However: i m Not a researcher. Not a physicist. Not a mathematician. My question is simple: so you agree with recent times average increases of earth s temperature? If so are you saying it’s caused by other then rising co2 in the atmosphere? And Earth will regulate it temperature over time naturally via emission of heat into space?
There seems no evidence that the global mean surface temperature increases. What you heard or saw is the so-called anomaly variation, i.e. the statistically weighted mean temperatures measured at finite number of places near the surface. Yes, the earth is capable of regulating its surface temperature.
Thank you. The media is a bad place to try to get at the truth. However for the laymen the science and math is incomprehensible on the other hand. I find your videos interesting and I can follow small parts of it.
Hi Dr. Zhong. Thanks so much for your videos. I am not a scientist, and can barely grasp what you are relaying. Would it be possible to summarize in simple terms what you are saying about C02 and infared radiation? I think you are saying that C02 can't absorb very much IR. Why is that? Are you saying C02 is not a greenhouse gas? Are you saying there is no greenhouse effect? Why is that? And why is there a scarcity of IR? These seems hugely important and I would just like to understand. Thanks so much.
Thank you comment. In short, the greenhouse effece hypothesis was proposed to explain why the surface is 33K colder than 255K. Hence the 33K is also called as Greenhouse effect type 1. But, the correct calaculation for surface temperature would be 278K without IR absorbers, water vaper, CO2 etc, that are called "greenhouse gases" by many people.
In fact, the mean surface temperature 288K can be maintaind by the presence of the atmosphere, just as the air temperature in an air pump is close to the internal surface temperature of the cylinder. Therefore, the greenhouse effect hypothesis is both unnecessary and incorrect, and GHSs, including CO2, should be correctly called asd IR absorbers. The IR absorbers play a role in regulating the outgoing IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere to stablize the surface temperature, rather than heating it up by IR.
Thanks very much for your reply.@@yongtuition
Not convinced about zero radiation how would you explain the view from space it shows clearly the terrestrial details in visible light, but like your thought processes. it is very hard to find the true path after being led down the wrong one.
The visible image of the surface is due to shortwave reflection. Indeed, without invoking the zeroth law at the isothermic interface, it is hard to understand the upward infrared rays from the atmosphere with the surface at its bottom.
Have you seen Ned Nikolov and Zeller's paper from 7-8 years ago?
Thank you for informing me. I will read it.
9:50 You *are* wrong.
There is no requirement of having a vacuum above the emitting surface. In fact, the molecules of the surface are not affected at all by the atmosphere at all. Within the absorption bands, some radiation is absorbed and randomly emitted, such that about half is re-emitted downwards. But this is only part of the radiation. Within the blackbody radiation envelope of the ground, a lot of wavelengths are hardly attenuated at all by the atmosphere, so clearly there is thermal radiation.
The temperature difference between the surface and the boundary layer is not zero. If it were, there would never be any heat transfer; neither convective or radiative. This is obviously false. An atmospheric temperature curve that reaches zero at the ground is just a model; a convenient approximation for some types of calculations.
Since nearly all the heat in the atmosphere comes from the surface, the surface is obviously warmer than their air. The atmosphere is never in thermal equilibrium with the surface
this year im sensing cold summer
...about today theme im bad at formulas but considering earth with air outage zone is unbelieveble 😜
They would never tell us the sun's radiance is decreasing.
Around 11:50, you discuss how surplus energy is radiated back into space but you neglect to mention that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere changes what that "surplus" threshold. The addition of certain gasses into the atmosphere increases the amount of energy the atmosphere can absorb and this has a direct effect on the temperatures we measure in the atmosphere. You can make double-talk statements about how Black Body Radiation assumes perfect absorption of energy with no reflectivity and you would be correct in that statement because it's just a concept on paper but you are wrong in your subtle implication that climate scientists aren't fully aware of the Earth's reflectivity which involves atmospheric density, cloud cover, snow cover, vegetation ocean surface and depth, etc. The hard fact is that there was a measurable increase in temperature since the Industrial Revolution and we have not seen any evidence that this increasing temperature trend will end -- it has only become more dramatic over time. You can talk yourself into circles about why we shouldn't be concerned about this but completely ignoring this very basic set of evidence that shows temperatures increasing is simply dishonesty or incompetence.
So what exactly are you saying? Summarize your perspective in one or two sentences. Here is an example summarized argument that climate change is a real thing: Ever since Humans discovered fire, direct measurements and geological analog measurements of the Earth's atmospheric temperature has produced data that suggests the atmospheric temperature at sea level is increasing.
Now summarize your stance using the same methodology and you'll be able to engage people in a meaningful conversation. Until Mr Yong does that, the words out of his mouth are meaningless because they go nowhere. For example, if we are measuring an increase in atmospheric temperature, then how would that be changed by any measurement strategy of the Earth's black body radiation? We're already measuring an increase -- so besides understanding our ecosystem better, the amount of energy we are radiating out into space is irrelevant because we are worried about the radiation that DOES NOT get radiated back into space -- this is the energy that increases the temperature here on Earth. It's a really simple set of evidence with a single graph -- there's no need to go cherry-picking papers and calling out perceived inaccuracies that have no impact on the core problem that the temperature is increasing.
Kevin, maximum temperature records are not keeping up with increases in CO2. Existing records of maximum temperatures go back 50-170 years ago when CO2 was 290ppm. High record temperatures are not necessarily associated with high CO2 levels e.g. where I live the record is 43.6C obtained in 1923 at a CO2 level of 310ppm. Random checks of the raw data across the globe show that there is no universal increase in maximum temperature despite CO2 advancing from 290-420ppm. The small town of Lytton in BC recorded a Canadian record of 49C just before a forest fire tore through. It was acknowledged as a 100 year event due to a combination of circumstances not related to climate change. The BBC stated that Athens would break its record of 47.7C last summer but on 23 July 23 it reached only 43.9C. The BBC failed to mention that because they have been trying to make people think that Europe is boiling.
@@yasi4877 your cherry-picked examples are meaningless. You need to look at the overall statistics and the trend across many data points over time.
Thermometers have existed for 400 years and there are numerous geological proxies that estimate these temperatures over thousands of years -- the best one being isotopic analysis of ice cores. The fractional comparison between Oxygen and Hydrogen isotopes is a function of temperature. Measuring these in thin slices within the ice cores tells us what the average temperature was for that area that year.
@@Kevin-ht1ox I'm not talking about average temperature deduced from proxy data that is subjective as to analysis and interpretation. You know very well I’m not cherry picking. There are A-Z lists of maximum temperature records in towns and cities across the globe. My interest began with those closest to me. Go through those and you find most date back 50-170 years when CO2 was as low as 290ppm. They remain record temperatures from long ago even as CO2 levels have risen from 290 - 420ppm. This is empirical evidence. It factually shows that CO2 has not been a driver of temperature. It's undeniable.
I would put it to you that an explanation for the above is that any warming from CO2 is historic and its' effects flat at higher levels, 400-800ppm as per Happer and his Thermal Emission & Absorption chart illustration. Dr Song can tell us more about that.
The prestigious Musee de Histoire in Paris has a pre-history section with tools and relics plus a plaque on the wall reading “6000 years ago the climate was warmer than today (+2C Greenland ice cores to give it a number), forests flourished, animals thrived and Mesolithic era hunter-gatherers were able to establish viable, stable settlements along the river”. This was a climate optimum.
Natural influences appear to be taking us into another climate optimum.
☺️ "promosm"