I really like the newer episodes of this series. Thank you for being concerned for accuracy. One question.... I was under the impression that land forests are not really a carbon sink because carbon cycles in and out of them a whole bunch. That most of the carbon they capture is eventually released as the dead plants decay. Especially in rainforests. I was also under the impression that the only real carbon sink in the long term is plankton. They capture carbon and fall to the ocean floor where it stays trapped for a very, very long time, eventually turning into oil and coal. Am I wrong? If I am, what detail am I missing or wrong about?
This is why environmental science is awesome and shows us how complex these issues are.👌 Working side by side with Earth to teach us why current climate and environmental issues are happening **cough cough, us** and how we can solve these problems using science. Like trying to see how nature is adapting to see how we can do the same and be more efficient and sustainable. We’re harming and polluting the planet and we need to start seeing that faster because karma is coming back to bite us in the bootie because in the end, we are hurting ourselves and the one planet we have to live on.
Great video, understanding Earth’s Climate is definitely very important. But I have a couple questions that I always had trouble understanding. 1. We understand CO2 drives Earths climate but what keeps Earth’s Temperatures stable and keep it from going into a rapid run away greenhouse effect every-time CO2 went up and warmed the Earth. 2. Warmer air can hold more water vapor. But how come deserts are very hot but not humid? Just asking these questions that have confused me a little.
plants grow more efficiently when the CO2 concentration is higher, so over long time scales, increasing plant growth can help balance out increasing CO2 levels. there are also some CO2 absorbing weathering processes that happen faster as CO2 levels increase. deserts generally have mountains or some other feature that drives air upwards in between them and the prevailing winds so that the water vapor is condensed out into clouds and rains over the mountains and the air doesn't have any moisture left once it gets to the desert. also, because deserts are also so much hotter than the surrounding areas, they are basically always covered by high-pressure zones that act like a bubble keeping everything else away from the desert.
I can help you with the first question: Ever body of mass with a temperature above absolute zero emits thermal radiation. This requires energy, so the object cools. The hotter something gets the more it emits. The radiation from our planet is called "earth shine". The incoming energy from the sun and the energy of the earth shine are roughly in an equilibrium. Because of this the average temperature is somewhat constant. But if more energy is taken in because the sun gets brighter or the radiation is trapped, the temperature rises until the new equilibrium is reached. If the earth didnt "shine" its temperature would just rise until the sun burned out, so this planet would be vaporized since long ago. For further infos search for "black body radiation".
I like you. Wanna know why? Because instead of jumping to whatever conclusions you _want_ to be true, you ask questions and wait for the facts to roll in. You are setting an excellent example; I do hope people are paying attention. 👍 PS - _never_ stop asking questions.
My uni is using this as a resource for our environmental law course! I guess online learning has its perks, I've now come across your amazing channel and have subbed :)
There is only one thing i miss in your video, that is that all the land ice has a very high "stored" energy. (I think the same as water that get heated from 20-60°C). So if all the ice is gone, the climate change will go much MUCH faster. Beside this, nice vid :)
Agreed. Also, the impact of greater water vapor on storm intensity: people should understand the energy contained therein (it's why steam from a kettle scalds you -- as the invisible water vapor condenses on your skin -- but dry air at the same temperature in an oven doesn't).
this is such an amazing video. incredibly informative basic introduction while also taking a deep enough dive into certain scientific jargon most people would otherwise not be introduced to in other videos. I LOVE IT
Great content??? Only its based on an unproven theory and not fact. Be careful about videos like this....make an effort to understand the science for yourself. Start be understanding what percentage CO2 represents in the global atmosphere.
Once again the atmospheric greenhouse was explained incorrectly. Even though it may be named greenhouse effect, the effect has nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses do not stay warm because the glass reflects light. You could test this with glass that does not absorb infrared light. They stay warm because the sun light can reach the inside of the greenhouse, but the heat energy can not leave via convection. In earth's atmosphere, there is no convection into space. All energy is radiated out. The reason why greenhouses gases warm the atmosphere is because at higher up altitudes (stratosphere and above), the atmosphere is stratisfied, meaning theris very little vertical movement or convection. Instead, heat energy is transferred upwards via radiation, which is helped by the thinner atmosphere). The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases, the less the heat is radiated upward, meaning the upper atmosphere starts cooling. The upper atmosphere though is the one that is basically "facing outward" towards space and from which the heat is radiated out in the end. If this part is cooler, then less energy is radiated, or in other words, more energy stays in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature, until a new radiation balance is reached. The only video on YT that explains this correctly (and which I know of) is the one by Sixty Symbols (The Greenhouse Effect Explained). They formulate it a bit differently, but it is still the same thing.
As for sea level rise remember what you learned in school that the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock in 1620. Well that rock is still above water so that is 2023-1620=403 years above water. Satellites say the rate of sea level rise is 3.2 mm/yr which is backed up by tidal gauges.
Great Video maybe you could make a Video about perma culture (i hope i translated it correctly from german) because for example beans are a plant which stores N in the soil and therefor they act like fertilizer. I think climate is not the only problem with modern agriaculture but surely one of the biggest which could be tackled with perma culture. Spread the Message (sepp holzer from austria is pretty into it but there are ofcause way more to check out)
This is very simplistic and doesn't go much deeper than a school wallchart. Whilst I admire your ernest presentation, I prefer boring data with clear interpretations showing the limitations of your conclusions. For example, the graph showing the correlation of carbon dioxide to average temperature seems very convincing but is the minimal (in comparison to orbital and solar variations) green-house effect a causal link and why is there a ten thousand year lag? Also the apocalyptic rise at the end must be from the last hundred years or so of data collection but it is represented by a line with a width covering about a thousand years. I believe there is a climate crisis but it is just a belief, I cannot form a cogent argument using objective data from reliable, replicatable sources. How is average temperature calculated? From how many data points? Covering what parts of the planet? i.e. how convincing is the quality of the data used, especially that for hundreds of thousands of years ago. You might argue that too much detail would be unintelligable to your audience but that is like a sincere seventeenth century priest interpreting latin for the illiterate, but not stupid, people.
Yeah, because your premise - that the rate of sea level rise is a constant - is false. CO2 emissions are rising exponentially and global warming is accelerating and with it the rate of sea level rise. But dont trust me, search for something like "2100 sea level rise" on the internet and look for articles from a respected science journal.
@@Vidley1777 Those figures either way shed light on how ignorant the argument "this celebrity bought a mansion 1.x metres above sea level so they can't be believing in climate change" is. Even if they expected to live another 80 years, the mansion still wouldn't be sunk
according to the IPCC: global mean sea levels will most likely rise between 0.95 feet (0.29m) and 3.61 feet (1.1m) by the end of this century, we're citing numbers on the lower end of the range for annual increase but by the end of the century those annual increases could be larger (as TheVidley pointed out, sea level rise is accelerating). the point though is even these few millimeters of sea level rise are already having disastrous impacts on coastal cities.
Iwer Sonsch i think is people can’t imagine a sea level rise of 0.5m to 2 m by 2100. Will flood some cities however won’t sink everything. So yea I agree. Wish everyone was a scientist :)
Carbon Dioxide is a poor greenhouse gas. Believe me I have a Chemistry background. Oxides of Sulphur are some of the best greenhouse gases around but so is methane. pH of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.3 and that is basic. If it were acidic you would see displacement reactions in the ocean and you don't see it.
how tropopause varies? please upload a video for how to calculate Annual oscillation , semiannual oscillation,triannual oscillation and trend in a given tropospheric temperature data? thank you
Please make a video that directly addresses the human overpopulation crisis. I loved your content in this video and your channel as a whole. I am a Middle School Science teacher and I use this material in class regularly, but I am sorely disappointed with the blatant lack of coverage that overpopulation gets. You mention emissions, food, production, waste, and more, yet you seem to be skirting around and purposefully avoiding the root cause of all those problems: human overpopulation. Trying to talk about climate change but avoiding population is doing your viewers a disservice. It is far too critical in addressing not only climate change, but improving quality of life for all living things on the planet and preventing complete environmental collapse. I will keep hoping and looking for a video that properly addresses this soon! Again, this is an excellent video and excellent channel, but you'll never solve a problem if you deny the main cause!
Global fertility is actually rapidly declining which will culminate in a shrinking of the world population by the mid century. I hope you aren't teaching your students that depopulation is the solution, that would be anti-human. This is exactly what is wrong with the environmentalist movement today: an anti-human foundation. I hope the parents of your students are aware of what they're being taught.
Gross world product has increased by 60% over the past 20 years. Is it physically possible to sustain another 60%, or more, increase in gross world product over the next 20 years, while also moving to entirely renewable energy?
I think at some point we can Either try, or many of us will end up dying off and the rest will live in a harsher world with a need to figure it out from scratch. The sooner we start taking it seriously, the better.
This is a poor video. It sees everything as a problem. And this isn't justified. The massive leap of faith is at about 5:00 in the video - the assumption that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise. This assumption is widely held, but it is not supported by real-world evidence. It is an area of scientific controversy known as "climate sensitivity" (to CO2), or ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). In 1979 (40 years ago) Jule Charney provided an estimate of ECS at 1.5C to 4.5C (per doubling of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere). That's a huge range, and still just an estimate- we have nothing to confirm ECS definitely sits within this range. Charney added the relationship of larger values of ECS taking longer to realise, as the highest estimates rely on assumptions of the longest natural processes. The high-end of the estimate would take many hundreds or even thousands of years to play out. So there is NOTHING in scientific reasoning to support high temperature change, caused by CO2, before 2100. The very most we might see is very modest change - and this is borne out by observations. But theoretical reasoning about ECS is not enough - the scientific method demands a theory to be confirmed or refuted using real-world observations. So there has been a great deal of research effort into producing estimates of ECS using actual real-world measurements. This is intended to reduce the range provided by Charney, but the opposite has happened. Attempts to estimate ECS have increased the uncertainty in the range. This is a sign that the underlying concept of ECS is not a well founded scientific concept. So climate science is stuck with theoretical reasoning. A large element of this is the domain of the climate models, which are a useful tool to take a closer look at some of the detail of the theory. Climate scientists LOVE using their climate models to produce lots of predictions. Helpfully, these models give us information about the theory which can be scientifically checked (i.e. compared to real world data). The computer models all contain the assumption of the physical process set out in the video above. It is important to note that ECS represents CHANGE of temperature from an underlying GHE position. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to enquire about the value of ECS without being accused of challenging the underlying greenhouse effect (which is a common mistake by people who strongly believe ECS creates a problem). When the climate models simulate the physical process of heat absorbtion in the atmosphere (that "trapping" of outgoing infra red), the additional energy being absorbed within the atmosphere produces a prediction of a rise in temperature WITHIN the atmosphere. It rise in temperature (rise in ENERGY) produces the infra red photons which are predicted to return to the surface to cause surface warming. Because the atmosphere has no concept of up versus down, the additional radiation of infrared is only partially returned to the surface. This means the predicted rise in temperature aloft has to be greater than the rise in temperature at the surface. In fact, for about 3C ECS, the models predict a rise in temperature aloft at about 1.4x the rise in temperature at the surface. The good news is that this is a testable element of the physical response to change of CO2, and we have plenty of data to check to see if it really is happening. And groups of researchers have done just that! What did they find? Answer: NOTHING. In fact change in temperature aloft is observed to be less than the change in surface temperature. This means the REAL atmosphere is telling us that the models (the theory) is wrong. There is nothing to support ECS being greater than zero. Which means your video is suffering from a lack of research, and it a bit of a waste of time. For anybody who wishes to discuss my comment above, I'm not interested in a lot of indignation. If you want to discuss it, please study the literature to make sure you understand where I am coming from. There is a long record of papers published, so search for "Santer et al" and "Christy et al" starting with publication dates after1994. I'm happy to discuss if you have made the attempt to inform yourself. I won't respond to lazy indignation.
"The massive leap of faith is at about 5:00 in the video - the assumption that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise. This assumption is widely held, but it is not supported by real-world evidence." You're making a statement that - if it stands up to scrutiny - would upend the vast body of evidence, accumulated in the scientific literature over the past 125 years, that informs the consensus held by nearly every currently-publishing climate scientist. Why are you wasting your time on TH-cam? Why don't you make a name for yourself and commit your research to a formal paper and submit it for peer review? ...then post us a link to the journal that publishes it?
@@Stealthbong Your claim of a "vast body of evidence" comes straight from page 2 of "Mein Klima". Have you noticed that I haven't challenged the idea that "adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise". The relevant question is the sensitivity to adding CO2 to the present-day atmosphere. Climate Sensitivity (the slope of the curve) could be zero in today's conditions at 400ppm, and it would not contradict your point that "adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise". If the starting point was zero PPM, it could be true that "adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise". This doesn't allow us to conclude that adding CO2 at 400ppm must therefore cause temperature rise. That's what the "Climate Sensitivity" controversy addresses. There is a huge range of estimates of ECS, and uncertainty has not been reduced since Charney. In fact uncertainty in the range has probably increased (if we rely on the range of published estimates). Before you launch in with any more misguided objections, why don't you try reading my comment and stop to give yourself a think about some of the principles.
Two minutes in and this youtuber already violated the Laws of Thermodynamics by stating the sun directly heats the atmosphere when in actuality the sun heats the surface directly and in turn that hotter surface heats the cooler air to make it hotter and in turn creates climate.
This misrepresents the truth.... In glacial cycles temperature drives CO2 levels as warmer oceans expel CO2. Sea levels have also been increasing consistently since the end of the last glacial maximum 10000yrs ago. Also the period up until the mid 19th century was known as the "Mini Ice Age", so it is not a good starting point for considering a base line temperature. While there is evidence in geological history of CO2 driving temperature (google PETM), there is not enough evidence that CO2 currently is - correlation is not causation.... As mentioned high CO2 can effect temperatures, but it's more likely that the warming trend from the late 19th century onwards was due to natural variations. Also, despite the famous "Hockey Stick" graph derived from proxy data sources (tree rings and ice cores) claiming to show the middle ages as being cold, there is physical evidence it was not - there is remnant 500yo forest over 100km north of the current Arctic tree line in Canada. Land clearing and desertification can also change regional climates and in the short term a lack of air travel can also increase solar radiation, as jet exhaust pollution is know to disperse solar radiation.
What do you think you'll accomplish with these videos? It's already too late. Do you think people will ever change? Just look at how they're treating COVID19 like it's another seasonal cold.
No, it isn't too late. Human activity is causing this crisis, and if we stop, we limit how much damage is done. What we choose to do is *by far* the biggest decider of how the future will pan out. We still have a beautiful planet capable of supporting billions of people and billions of species, and it's all very much still there to fight for. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Fatalism is just as toxic as outright climate change denial, and just as unscientific. They're not opposites, they're the same. They're false, they're lazy, they're oversimplified fantasies, and they encourage the exact same outcomes. Inaction. Destruction. Death. We can do better than that.
Don't worry, peak oil will plunge our economies in such chaos that we might actually not have to worry so much (but just in case, I'm still trying to be as ecofriendly as possible ^^)
You know what i was pleasantly surprised about a climate change video that simply explained stuff one might want to know. Then you brought up race and income inequality if you wanna bring that up you can but maybe do it in a separate video. And i know nobody is going to care and im just talking into the void but here is my comment your welcome.
Yeah, but that unequal impact is very real, and an important thing to know about, especially when you consider who is making the most effort to deny climate change exists.
The environmental injustice is also mostly felt harder in africa by flooding and destroying infrastructure, agricultural activity, and homes for people causing immigration, hunger and conflicts over resources. And africa only accounts for about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. I'm from east Africa, Rwanda and the effects of global warming are seen as a current issue not a future problem to us and our neighboring countries, climate change is a death sentence to many in Africa.
This woman in this video clearly has not got a science education and has never looked at the data. She is simply reading a script by Scott Sowell who teaches Environmental Science. Its Atmospheric Dynamics and Applied Physics which count in Climatology because Climate is driven primarily by sinusoidal wave function and harmonics here on the Earth after the Sun as the unrivalled main driver. If she had actually looked at the Vostok ice core data for herself she would see that the theory she has adopted and apes is worng. CO2 Ppm is affected by temperature and there is an 800 year lag. So there is a good argument that the small increase we see today is a result of temperature change due to other factors like global atmospheric condensation nuclie distribution in the year 1300. This completely destroys her aped diotribe. In any case H20 completely eclipses CO2 as a so called 'greenhouse gas' by some 40,000 times because we actually live in a water world and CO2 is simply a trace compound which only exists in one state. Unlike H2O which can exist in three states here on Earth and therefore the immense power of thermodynamics come into play. Seriously, someone needs to read more and stop watching the media and listening to government output about climate science which has now become politicised.
If you would have done research on your first sentence you'd see that Miriam Nielsen has a PhD in Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Thank you.
@@samsmith5947 As I said; "Its Atmospheric Dynamics and Applied Physics which count in Climatology because Climate is driven primarily by sinusoidal wave function and harmonics here on the Earth after the Sun as the unrivalled main driver." Its not environmental or Earth studies, it is not relevant, it's simply a sub-set without the detail and full understanding of the subject as is clear in this video. She needs to study more and read all the data, not simply copy and paste nonsense. Thats what environmentalists do, they simply copy and paste their prefered data to back up their prefered ideological preachings. Its not science.
@@spillarge alright. So you have studied this then? If you have a PhD in these subjects then your criticism is fair. If not, then you're the one that's copy pasting their preferred data without being an expert. It's fine to not be an expert on this, and you don't have to prove your credentials to me, but then don't hate on this video as if it's unscientific. The data seems implausible to me too, but this is a unique situation we are in. The science is clear, even if we don't want it to be.
@@samsmith5947 The science is absolutely NOT clear. If you have spent even a modicum of time studying the subject you would never make a statement like that. 80% of all physicists are not at all convinced, 65% of geologists are not believing and the only reason that a larger majority of climatologists seem to believe in the theory is because their very livelyhoods and careers depend on it. You should spend time at the lectures and meetings rather than believing nonsense from the uninformed media circus. Ask me anything you want from the following list of known and understood climate drivers and we can have a proper discussion: Thermodynamics, Solar Cycles, Eloectromagnetic Variability, Gamma and High energy radiation relative to condensation nuclie, The Coriolis Force, Albedo, The Earth's Magnetosphere and charged particulates, The Thermohaline cycle, The hydrological cycle, The Indian Ocean Dipole, The Madden Julian Oscillation, Magma Weather, The Milankovitch cycles, Gravity waves, Volcanism, Hadley Cell, AMOC Meridional Overturning Circulations, So called 'Greenhouse process', (retentive LW radiation), The North Atlantic Oscillation, The Quasi Biennial Oscillation, ENSO; (El Nino's and la Nina cycles) Basically climates in the world are a result of a combination of all these drivers and respond as anologue sinusoidal wave function and harmonics. It has very little to do with just one driver in isolation.
This is a reupload! We fixed a couple of small errors in the first version to make sure you get the best information.
I really like the newer episodes of this series. Thank you for being concerned for accuracy.
One question.... I was under the impression that land forests are not really a carbon sink because carbon cycles in and out of them a whole bunch. That most of the carbon they capture is eventually released as the dead plants decay. Especially in rainforests.
I was also under the impression that the only real carbon sink in the long term is plankton. They capture carbon and fall to the ocean floor where it stays trapped for a very, very long time, eventually turning into oil and coal.
Am I wrong? If I am, what detail am I missing or wrong about?
If I may ask, a list of the changes would be quite helpful, as it is probably shorter than the entire video.
I was soooo confused lol
What was corrected? Dont wanna watch it all through again to find out i guess
Yeah that confused me , i thought i had a deja-vu
This is why environmental science is awesome and shows us how complex these issues are.👌 Working side by side with Earth to teach us why current climate and environmental issues are happening **cough cough, us** and how we can solve these problems using science. Like trying to see how nature is adapting to see how we can do the same and be more efficient and sustainable. We’re harming and polluting the planet and we need to start seeing that faster because karma is coming back to bite us in the bootie because in the end, we are hurting ourselves and the one planet we have to live on.
watch: Climate Science Destroyed In 8 Minutes
Thank you, your vigilance makes your channel the best.
Thanks for always presenting such great info and doing it in such a great way!!
I'm an environmental science student, thank you hot mess for this very helpful video!
@Geek X I'm not gonna work on ES lol, I'll try a career in meteorology. How is ES not manly? Lol
@Geek X say that to meteorologists not to me
@Geek X 👍
Great video, understanding Earth’s Climate is definitely very important.
But I have a couple questions that I always had trouble understanding.
1. We understand CO2 drives Earths climate but what keeps Earth’s Temperatures stable and keep it from going into a rapid run away greenhouse effect every-time CO2 went up and warmed the Earth.
2. Warmer air can hold more water vapor. But how come deserts are very hot but not humid?
Just asking these questions that have confused me a little.
2. if there is no water to begin with , you could be hot without being humid ,sure the air could hold more water but simply there isn't any
plants grow more efficiently when the CO2 concentration is higher, so over long time scales, increasing plant growth can help balance out increasing CO2 levels. there are also some CO2 absorbing weathering processes that happen faster as CO2 levels increase.
deserts generally have mountains or some other feature that drives air upwards in between them and the prevailing winds so that the water vapor is condensed out into clouds and rains over the mountains and the air doesn't have any moisture left once it gets to the desert.
also, because deserts are also so much hotter than the surrounding areas, they are basically always covered by high-pressure zones that act like a bubble keeping everything else away from the desert.
I can help you with the first question:
Ever body of mass with a temperature above absolute zero emits thermal radiation. This requires energy, so the object cools. The hotter something gets the more it emits. The radiation from our planet is called "earth shine". The incoming energy from the sun and the energy of the earth shine are roughly in an equilibrium. Because of this the average temperature is somewhat constant.
But if more energy is taken in because the sun gets brighter or the radiation is trapped, the temperature rises until the new equilibrium is reached.
If the earth didnt "shine" its temperature would just rise until the sun burned out, so this planet would be vaporized since long ago.
For further infos search for "black body radiation".
I like you. Wanna know why? Because instead of jumping to whatever conclusions you _want_ to be true, you ask questions and wait for the facts to roll in. You are setting an excellent example; I do hope people are paying attention. 👍
PS - _never_ stop asking questions.
Yassin Almohtadi wow I never thought about it that way. Thanks
My uni is using this as a resource for our environmental law course! I guess online learning has its perks, I've now come across your amazing channel and have subbed :)
this was excellent, thanks!
There is only one thing i miss in your video, that is that all the land ice has a very high "stored" energy. (I think the same as water that get heated from 20-60°C). So if all the ice is gone, the climate change will go much MUCH faster. Beside this, nice vid :)
I believe you but do you have a reference on that? Thx.
Agreed. Also, the impact of greater water vapor on storm intensity: people should understand the energy contained therein (it's why steam from a kettle scalds you -- as the invisible water vapor condenses on your skin -- but dry air at the same temperature in an oven doesn't).
this is such an amazing video. incredibly informative basic introduction while also taking a deep enough dive into certain scientific jargon most people would otherwise not be introduced to in other videos. I LOVE IT
Great content, as always. Should be subtitled in every languages and shown on TV around the world, at each single ad break...
Great content??? Only its based on an unproven theory and not fact. Be careful about videos like this....make an effort to understand the science for yourself. Start be understanding what percentage CO2 represents in the global atmosphere.
Music is on point. Somehow you just know "science music" when you hear it.
Great video! Wish this type of information had more views!
Once again the atmospheric greenhouse was explained incorrectly. Even though it may be named greenhouse effect, the effect has nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses do not stay warm because the glass reflects light. You could test this with glass that does not absorb infrared light. They stay warm because the sun light can reach the inside of the greenhouse, but the heat energy can not leave via convection.
In earth's atmosphere, there is no convection into space. All energy is radiated out.
The reason why greenhouses gases warm the atmosphere is because at higher up altitudes (stratosphere and above), the atmosphere is stratisfied, meaning theris very little vertical movement or convection. Instead, heat energy is transferred upwards via radiation, which is helped by the thinner atmosphere). The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases, the less the heat is radiated upward, meaning the upper atmosphere starts cooling. The upper atmosphere though is the one that is basically "facing outward" towards space and from which the heat is radiated out in the end. If this part is cooler, then less energy is radiated, or in other words, more energy stays in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature, until a new radiation balance is reached.
The only video on YT that explains this correctly (and which I know of) is the one by Sixty Symbols (The Greenhouse Effect Explained). They formulate it a bit differently, but it is still the same thing.
i think they were just trying to explain it in a more simple way ngl dude but this is interesting
As for sea level rise remember what you learned in school that the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock in 1620. Well that rock is still above water so that is 2023-1620=403 years above water. Satellites say the rate of sea level rise is 3.2 mm/yr which is backed up by tidal gauges.
using this to cram for my climatology final
😍
Great Video maybe you could make a Video about perma culture (i hope i translated it correctly from german) because for example beans are a plant which stores N in the soil and therefor they act like fertilizer.
I think climate is not the only problem with modern agriaculture but surely one of the biggest which could be tackled with perma culture.
Spread the Message (sepp holzer from austria is pretty into it but there are ofcause way more to check out)
This is very simplistic and doesn't go much deeper than a school wallchart. Whilst I admire your ernest presentation, I prefer boring data with clear interpretations showing the limitations of your conclusions. For example, the graph showing the correlation of carbon dioxide to average temperature seems very convincing but is the minimal (in comparison to orbital and solar variations) green-house effect a causal link and why is there a ten thousand year lag? Also the apocalyptic rise at the end must be from the last hundred years or so of data collection but it is represented by a line with a width covering about a thousand years.
I believe there is a climate crisis but it is just a belief, I cannot form a cogent argument using objective data from reliable, replicatable sources.
How is average temperature calculated? From how many data points? Covering what parts of the planet? i.e. how convincing is the quality of the data used, especially that for hundreds of thousands of years ago. You might argue that too much detail would be unintelligable to your audience but that is like a sincere seventeenth century priest interpreting latin for the illiterate, but not stupid, people.
Thanks young lady, that was definitely educational and informative.
Good video! Good overall breakdown of all the elements at work.
Great video, thank for posting this!
Slow down and 1/2 an octave down would also help make this listenable!!
dont bother...its all focussed on CO2 theoretical garbage. Its not fact.
Very informative. Thanks.
Interesting video, very informative. But that intrusive background music really starts to grate after a while.
Wild to assume 1:38
Can you back that up with a source ?
*points to the horizon*
12:09 to 12:37
(0.14cm+0.18cm)*80=25.6cm=0.256m... that's not more than a meter?!
Yeah, because your premise - that the rate of sea level rise is a constant - is false. CO2 emissions are rising exponentially and global warming is accelerating and with it the rate of sea level rise. But dont trust me, search for something like "2100 sea level rise" on the internet and look for articles from a respected science journal.
@@Vidley1777 Thanks
@@Vidley1777 Those figures either way shed light on how ignorant the argument "this celebrity bought a mansion 1.x metres above sea level so they can't be believing in climate change" is. Even if they expected to live another 80 years, the mansion still wouldn't be sunk
according to the IPCC: global mean sea levels will most likely rise between 0.95 feet (0.29m) and 3.61 feet (1.1m) by the end of this century, we're citing numbers on the lower end of the range for annual increase but by the end of the century those annual increases could be larger (as TheVidley pointed out, sea level rise is accelerating).
the point though is even these few millimeters of sea level rise are already having disastrous impacts on coastal cities.
Iwer Sonsch i think is people can’t imagine a sea level rise of 0.5m to 2 m by 2100. Will flood some cities however won’t sink everything. So yea I agree. Wish everyone was a scientist :)
Carbon Dioxide is a poor greenhouse gas. Believe me I have a Chemistry background. Oxides of Sulphur are some of the best greenhouse gases around but so is methane. pH of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.3 and that is basic. If it were acidic you would see displacement reactions in the ocean and you don't see it.
how tropopause varies? please upload a video for how to calculate Annual oscillation , semiannual oscillation,triannual oscillation and trend in a given tropospheric temperature data? thank you
TH-cam: "Global warming"
Me, an intellectual: "Global climate change"
Thank you
Skrillex dropping some science stuff
this is very informational
Can you talk about water as a greenhouse gas? How does it effect climate? How are clouds changing and what effect clouds have on climate?
@Geek X I'm worried that the reflective quality of clouds may not be enough to counter the blanket effect of trapping heat in.
Please make a video that directly addresses the human overpopulation crisis. I loved your content in this video and your channel as a whole. I am a Middle School Science teacher and I use this material in class regularly, but I am sorely disappointed with the blatant lack of coverage that overpopulation gets. You mention emissions, food, production, waste, and more, yet you seem to be skirting around and purposefully avoiding the root cause of all those problems: human overpopulation. Trying to talk about climate change but avoiding population is doing your viewers a disservice. It is far too critical in addressing not only climate change, but improving quality of life for all living things on the planet and preventing complete environmental collapse. I will keep hoping and looking for a video that properly addresses this soon! Again, this is an excellent video and excellent channel, but you'll never solve a problem if you deny the main cause!
Global fertility is actually rapidly declining which will culminate in a shrinking of the world population by the mid century. I hope you aren't teaching your students that depopulation is the solution, that would be anti-human. This is exactly what is wrong with the environmentalist movement today: an anti-human foundation. I hope the parents of your students are aware of what they're being taught.
You guys need to learn about regenerative agriculture.
In particular how can hebivores be a solution to put carbon back in the ground.
Whaaaat, earth is a sphere?!
Oblate spheroid.
Hi, I'd like to know why water vapor is never mentioned whether in the composition of the atmosphere or on its effect on climate change.
Why is 'old growth' important? Is 80 years not enough time to plan for a meter of sea rise?
Do you want to pay for the execution of such plans?
Gross world product has increased by 60% over the past 20 years. Is it physically possible to sustain another 60%, or more, increase in gross world product over the next 20 years, while also moving to entirely renewable energy?
I think at some point we can Either try, or many of us will end up dying off and the rest will live in a harsher world with a need to figure it out from scratch.
The sooner we start taking it seriously, the better.
This is a poor video. It sees everything as a problem. And this isn't justified. The massive leap of faith is at about 5:00 in the video - the assumption that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise. This assumption is widely held, but it is not supported by real-world evidence.
It is an area of scientific controversy known as "climate sensitivity" (to CO2), or ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity). In 1979 (40 years ago) Jule Charney provided an estimate of ECS at 1.5C to 4.5C (per doubling of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere). That's a huge range, and still just an estimate- we have nothing to confirm ECS definitely sits within this range. Charney added the relationship of larger values of ECS taking longer to realise, as the highest estimates rely on assumptions of the longest natural processes. The high-end of the estimate would take many hundreds or even thousands of years to play out. So there is NOTHING in scientific reasoning to support high temperature change, caused by CO2, before 2100. The very most we might see is very modest change - and this is borne out by observations.
But theoretical reasoning about ECS is not enough - the scientific method demands a theory to be confirmed or refuted using real-world observations. So there has been a great deal of research effort into producing estimates of ECS using actual real-world measurements. This is intended to reduce the range provided by Charney, but the opposite has happened. Attempts to estimate ECS have increased the uncertainty in the range. This is a sign that the underlying concept of ECS is not a well founded scientific concept.
So climate science is stuck with theoretical reasoning. A large element of this is the domain of the climate models, which are a useful tool to take a closer look at some of the detail of the theory. Climate scientists LOVE using their climate models to produce lots of predictions. Helpfully, these models give us information about the theory which can be scientifically checked (i.e. compared to real world data).
The computer models all contain the assumption of the physical process set out in the video above. It is important to note that ECS represents CHANGE of temperature from an underlying GHE position. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to enquire about the value of ECS without being accused of challenging the underlying greenhouse effect (which is a common mistake by people who strongly believe ECS creates a problem).
When the climate models simulate the physical process of heat absorbtion in the atmosphere (that "trapping" of outgoing infra red), the additional energy being absorbed within the atmosphere produces a prediction of a rise in temperature WITHIN the atmosphere. It rise in temperature (rise in ENERGY) produces the infra red photons which are predicted to return to the surface to cause surface warming. Because the atmosphere has no concept of up versus down, the additional radiation of infrared is only partially returned to the surface. This means the predicted rise in temperature aloft has to be greater than the rise in temperature at the surface. In fact, for about 3C ECS, the models predict a rise in temperature aloft at about 1.4x the rise in temperature at the surface.
The good news is that this is a testable element of the physical response to change of CO2, and we have plenty of data to check to see if it really is happening. And groups of researchers have done just that!
What did they find? Answer: NOTHING. In fact change in temperature aloft is observed to be less than the change in surface temperature. This means the REAL atmosphere is telling us that the models (the theory) is wrong. There is nothing to support ECS being greater than zero.
Which means your video is suffering from a lack of research, and it a bit of a waste of time.
For anybody who wishes to discuss my comment above, I'm not interested in a lot of indignation. If you want to discuss it, please study the literature to make sure you understand where I am coming from. There is a long record of papers published, so search for "Santer et al" and "Christy et al" starting with publication dates after1994. I'm happy to discuss if you have made the attempt to inform yourself. I won't respond to lazy indignation.
"The massive leap of faith is at about 5:00 in the video - the assumption that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise. This assumption is widely held, but it is not supported by real-world evidence."
You're making a statement that - if it stands up to scrutiny - would upend the vast body of evidence, accumulated in the scientific literature over the past 125 years, that informs the consensus held by nearly every currently-publishing climate scientist. Why are you wasting your time on TH-cam? Why don't you make a name for yourself and commit your research to a formal paper and submit it for peer review? ...then post us a link to the journal that publishes it?
@@Stealthbong Your claim of a "vast body of evidence" comes straight from page 2 of "Mein Klima".
Have you noticed that I haven't challenged the idea that "adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise". The relevant question is the sensitivity to adding CO2 to the present-day atmosphere. Climate Sensitivity (the slope of the curve) could be zero in today's conditions at 400ppm, and it would not contradict your point that "adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise". If the starting point was zero PPM, it could be true that "adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes temperature rise". This doesn't allow us to conclude that adding CO2 at 400ppm must therefore cause temperature rise. That's what the "Climate Sensitivity" controversy addresses. There is a huge range of estimates of ECS, and uncertainty has not been reduced since Charney. In fact uncertainty in the range has probably increased (if we rely on the range of published estimates).
Before you launch in with any more misguided objections, why don't you try reading my comment and stop to give yourself a think about some of the principles.
Two minutes in and this youtuber already violated the Laws of Thermodynamics by stating the sun directly heats the atmosphere when in actuality the sun heats the surface directly and in turn that hotter surface heats the cooler air to make it hotter and in turn creates climate.
commenting so that youtube do its thing
HOT MESS. Female explainer might talk a little slower, maybe 15%. helps understanding level. Hopefully constructive criticism.
Thank you Snow White 🙂
Why did you unlist this video and then reuploaded it 4 days later?
Anthrax and infectious diseases trapped in the melting permafrost looking at corona like 👁👄👁
This misrepresents the truth.... In glacial cycles temperature drives CO2 levels as warmer oceans expel CO2. Sea levels have also been increasing consistently since the end of the last glacial maximum 10000yrs ago. Also the period up until the mid 19th century was known as the "Mini Ice Age", so it is not a good starting point for considering a base line temperature. While there is evidence in geological history of CO2 driving temperature (google PETM), there is not enough evidence that CO2 currently is - correlation is not causation.... As mentioned high CO2 can effect temperatures, but it's more likely that the warming trend from the late 19th century onwards was due to natural variations. Also, despite the famous "Hockey Stick" graph derived from proxy data sources (tree rings and ice cores) claiming to show the middle ages as being cold, there is physical evidence it was not - there is remnant 500yo forest over 100km north of the current Arctic tree line in Canada. Land clearing and desertification can also change regional climates and in the short term a lack of air travel can also increase solar radiation, as jet exhaust pollution is know to disperse solar radiation.
Videos like these used to be very important but they did not work and now are just party pooping our last decades on this planet.
the problem is that 'you are reading straight from a book or notes or ready made script.
Oh. Deja vu?
When’s the next video coming out?
you talk fast!
Great video but presentation was not good because of speaking so fast and it was awful for me because I'm not native speaker in English.
What do you think you'll accomplish with these videos? It's already too late. Do you think people will ever change? Just look at how they're treating COVID19 like it's another seasonal cold.
No, it isn't too late. Human activity is causing this crisis, and if we stop, we limit how much damage is done. What we choose to do is *by far* the biggest decider of how the future will pan out. We still have a beautiful planet capable of supporting billions of people and billions of species, and it's all very much still there to fight for. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Fatalism is just as toxic as outright climate change denial, and just as unscientific. They're not opposites, they're the same. They're false, they're lazy, they're oversimplified fantasies, and they encourage the exact same outcomes. Inaction. Destruction. Death.
We can do better than that.
Don't worry, peak oil will plunge our economies in such chaos that we might actually not have to worry so much (but just in case, I'm still trying to be as ecofriendly as possible ^^)
lol I'm guessing there's an intermediate then advance and then...? :)
Mah brain.
You really should listen to yourself talking about solar insolation. Is there a type of insolation that involves solar radiation that is not solar?
You know what i was pleasantly surprised about a climate change video that simply explained stuff one might want to know. Then you brought up race and income inequality if you wanna bring that up you can but maybe do it in a separate video. And i know nobody is going to care and im just talking into the void but here is my comment your welcome.
Yeah, but that unequal impact is very real, and an important thing to know about, especially when you consider who is making the most effort to deny climate change exists.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, is simply untrue”
- Richard Horton Lancet Editor
I thought the Earth was an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.
You talk too fast. Slow down, so we can take notes or let it sink in.
Speed of speaking or explanation should be slow
You speak too too too too fast that other people find hard to follow or don't understand a thing you said.
The environmental injustice is also mostly felt harder in africa by flooding and destroying infrastructure, agricultural activity, and homes for people causing immigration, hunger and conflicts over resources. And africa only accounts for about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. I'm from east Africa, Rwanda and the effects of global warming are seen as a current issue not a future problem to us and our neighboring countries, climate change is a death sentence to many in Africa.
This woman in this video clearly has not got a science education and has never looked at the data. She is simply reading a script by Scott Sowell who teaches Environmental Science. Its Atmospheric Dynamics and Applied Physics which count in Climatology because Climate is driven primarily by sinusoidal wave function and harmonics here on the Earth after the Sun as the unrivalled main driver. If she had actually looked at the Vostok ice core data for herself she would see that the theory she has adopted and apes is worng. CO2 Ppm is affected by temperature and there is an 800 year lag. So there is a good argument that the small increase we see today is a result of temperature change due to other factors like global atmospheric condensation nuclie distribution in the year 1300. This completely destroys her aped diotribe. In any case H20 completely eclipses CO2 as a so called 'greenhouse gas' by some 40,000 times because we actually live in a water world and CO2 is simply a trace compound which only exists in one state. Unlike H2O which can exist in three states here on Earth and therefore the immense power of thermodynamics come into play. Seriously, someone needs to read more and stop watching the media and listening to government output about climate science which has now become politicised.
If you would have done research on your first sentence you'd see that Miriam Nielsen has a PhD in Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Thank you.
@@samsmith5947 As I said; "Its Atmospheric Dynamics and Applied Physics which count in Climatology because Climate is driven primarily by sinusoidal wave function and harmonics here on the Earth after the Sun as the unrivalled main driver." Its not environmental or Earth studies, it is not relevant, it's simply a sub-set without the detail and full understanding of the subject as is clear in this video. She needs to study more and read all the data, not simply copy and paste nonsense. Thats what environmentalists do, they simply copy and paste their prefered data to back up their prefered ideological preachings. Its not science.
@@spillarge alright. So you have studied this then? If you have a PhD in these subjects then your criticism is fair. If not, then you're the one that's copy pasting their preferred data without being an expert. It's fine to not be an expert on this, and you don't have to prove your credentials to me, but then don't hate on this video as if it's unscientific. The data seems implausible to me too, but this is a unique situation we are in. The science is clear, even if we don't want it to be.
@@samsmith5947 The science is absolutely NOT clear. If you have spent even a modicum of time studying the subject you would never make a statement like that. 80% of all physicists are not at all convinced, 65% of geologists are not believing and the only reason that a larger majority of climatologists seem to believe in the theory is because their very livelyhoods and careers depend on it. You should spend time at the lectures and meetings rather than believing nonsense from the uninformed media circus.
Ask me anything you want from the following list of known and understood climate drivers and we can have a proper discussion:
Thermodynamics,
Solar Cycles,
Eloectromagnetic Variability,
Gamma and High energy radiation relative to condensation nuclie,
The Coriolis Force,
Albedo,
The Earth's Magnetosphere and charged particulates,
The Thermohaline cycle,
The hydrological cycle,
The Indian Ocean Dipole,
The Madden Julian Oscillation,
Magma Weather,
The Milankovitch cycles,
Gravity waves,
Volcanism,
Hadley Cell,
AMOC Meridional Overturning Circulations,
So called 'Greenhouse process', (retentive LW radiation),
The North Atlantic Oscillation,
The Quasi Biennial Oscillation,
ENSO; (El Nino's and la Nina cycles) Basically climates in the world are a result of a combination of all these drivers and respond as anologue sinusoidal wave function and harmonics. It has very little to do with just one driver in isolation.
a joke
This was enlightening