Shouldn't middle depiction (#2) indicate red band of hotness near surface (where it matters most to plants and aminals)?

I'm just happy to have great greenhouse tomatoes in winter! 😋YUM! Vielen dank Sabine!

@@arnswine It would have been too difficult to depict the difference to the final picture, so we dropped that.

TOO "dumbed down" if you want "rational" people to believe you!

Past climate has seen CO2 levels at 6000ppm so did humans cause those levels?? Plants die below 120ppm....think about that. But don't worry I don't want you to wiggle about losing your monetisation.

I had a similar issue, but my course was 100% energy management (dams, solar, etc vs needs over time and in different places). 😂

In the Montana College in Missoula, the effects of Greenhouse Gas emissions are taught by a pretty good Common Sense Educator. Steve Running has received recognition for his efforts to understand one of the most prominent polluters in the Western US, at a small town called Coalstrip. We may be fortunate to discuss local effects of economic demands on facts that are presented by internet websites, but facts do matter, and we all need to look at all of the effects that money can buy?

Similar to the dialogue around corona..

Yeah you could have saved yourself a lot of time and money by watching a 20 minute video that just agreed with your prejudices.

If your school's environmental economics was anything like mine, you can completely disregard it. Carbon credits, cap and trade, all these things are utterly ineffective. There's only one solution, seizing all private petroleum assets and shutting them down.

The feedbacks are clearly negative. Systems with positive feedbacks are unstable, so if it could it would have already, and we’d have been in runaway global warming for billions of years. Unfortunately Sabine is missing the big picture.

@@bluebristolian Climate scientists use "positive feedback" in a slightly different sense to how electronics engineers (and possibly others) use it. When they say "positive feedback" they mean that the loop gain is > 0 but < 1, and so is still basically stable (but may have oscillations that will die out). You can think of a CO2-induced temperature gain of (say) 0.8C, producing 0.4C further increase from positive feedback, which then produces 0.2C of further increase from positive feedback (on itself!), which then produces 0.1C of further increase, etc. In this simple case the overall gain would be end-up as 1.6C, thus doubling the original CO2-induced temperature change. The real climate is of course rather more complicated, with different feedbacks operating on vastly different time scales.

It seems my follow-up post has been auto-blocked by UKposts, possibly due to me including links for reference. What I basically said is that the sum of positive+negative feedbacks is known as "climate sensitivity". The IPCC's best estimate of climate sensitivity is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C. But without ANY feedbacks (i.e. just the physics mentioned in this video) CO2 would only increase temperature by about 1C (this is a non-controversial statement!). Thus CO2's physically direct contribution is only 1/2.5 to 1/4 of the total warming effect (i.e. 40% to 25%).

Sorry, I don't use either of those apps, but anyway I'm just a science nerd with a passing interest in climate science 🙂

Well, I’m no scientist either, but I can read; so with trepidation… There’s still a missing feature, which is the fact that evapotranspiration + convection is responsible for carrying away a large fraction of surface heat as the latent heat of evaporation. At the cold trap, water condenses (OK, I know that this is complicated by the need for condensation nuclei) and the heat is radiated away into space. It’s the reason we are not, and will never be, at rusk of runaway global warming. The big question, which I can’t see clearly covered in the IPCC science sections, is how this is affected by changes in surface temperature. You’d naively expect a strong negative feedback. But (witness Sabine’s presentation and your own reply) nobody seems to be talking about it one way or the other.

Same reason pressure increases with water depth, yes?

I noticed that error, too

Isn't energy moving thru the atmosphere via convection vs radiation at least until it reaches the higher elevation where the air is scarce?

​@@miked5106It is both radiation and convection yes. But another major effect is atmospheric heat piping by water vapor. Look up a heat pipe and how it functions. Now realize that water has a high heat of vaporization and condensation. Note the fact water vapor is lighter than air and convects upward, plus is a infrared absorbtive and radiative gas. These properties cause the water cycle to act as a natural heat pipe. Water evaporates at the surface, capturing the heat of vaporation at low elevation. That latent heat of vaporization cannot be lost by radiation back to the surface unless it condenses. The water vapor can then also warm radiatively by absorbing more infrared heat from the surface, or warm CO2 in the atmosphere. High humidity air being lighter than dry air it rises. Rising above a significant amount of CO2 which is denser than air so stays relatively lower. At cloud height it cools to the point it condenses, releasing its enormous load of latent heat of condensation, and radiates above most CO2. The cold rain falls back to earth cooling the surface. The cloud also reflects incoming solar radiation. Every raindrop represents a net cooling done by this natural heat pipe. Heat had to have radiated to space for it to condense and fall back.

@@SimonFrack I'd say that is correct.

Sure that's good enough for sure, whatever turns your crank. Greenhouse Effect is that top of troposphere is (much) colder than bottom of troposphere and colder bunches of molecules make less radiation than warmer bunches of molecules, and top of troposphere is closer to space and bottom of troposphere is closer to surface. That's it.

I'm with you. This is really difficult.

Well, unfortunately it's still not right. That's just not really how a greenhouse works. Greenhouses work by preventing conduction/mixing of the warmed air with the cooler air above it.

Let's try... Greenhouse effect works in a building with roof and sides made of glass. Beware of False Analogies.

i normally have to Sabines videos several times to get a thorough understanding. please don’t feel alone

@@dsp3ncr1 Let me make sure I get this right: Your point is only that the metaphor doesn't exactly fit, not that any part of the actual explanation is wrong, is it?

I would like to know the worst case scenario: What if we burn all those fossil fuel? From the science point of view there were period of time on Earth when all that fossils plants were alive on planet surface (before there were buried underground and fossilization process started). Lets put aside the process how those plants were buried - that catastrophic event (wipe out and buried Earth surface) is much more dangerous for humanity than climate change itself. - How high air temperature were? - How much would human civilization needed to adopt for that worst case? - And the most important one, how many centuries it would take to get the worst case if we continue in fossil fuel burn (including growth of population) I assume there would be no ice caps and Earth. Rising ocean levels is easy to handle as housing building speed (area per year) is much higher than area taken by ocean per year. Also with that high CO2 concentration whole planet would be incredibly green and food rich.

@@arm-power It is the massive changes that would be required from human population and governments to accommodate the environmental climate movements that would kill us. We can easily live on a 'warmer' planet Earth - but in different places on Earth. It's getting through the climate wars that will be the problem. We are in one of them now.

Will be good also to tell your students that that CO2 is not stopping the heat, but is re-emitting the heat in all directions. That means that CO2 also stops the heat coming from the Sun. Also, any warming will increase dramatically the water evaporation of the oceans, and the white cloud cover will block and reflect back most of the incoming sunlight.

Can you explain why "the ditch" gets wider with altitude when more CO2 is added.

but it is a terrible presentation when it attempts to pass judgment on climate change. the woman appears to be unaware the clouds are made of water vapor and have high albedo. she also seems to be unaware of ocean heat transport, solar-induced destruction of polar ozone, etc.

Thank you to Sabine for the excellent video and to David for the small correction. The decrease of gravity within the relevant parts of the atmosphere, which has a "thickness" of about 100 km, is also quite small, as these ~ 100 km are not much compared to the radius of earth (slightly more than 6350 km). To summarize in a humorous way: Even a flat earth would have an atmosphere that becomes less dense and colder at higher altitudes. At least as long as we don't think too much about what happens to the atmosphere near the edge of the disc. That being said, the (nearly) spherical shape of the earth is still important for the greenhouse effect.

The distinction David (and many others below) seems to be making is between direct gravitational "pull" on molecules and cumulative "pull" - the latter emerging as pressure increasing with depth. Both are due to gravity.

Thant also works on flat surfuces, no balls needed thank you.

And what exactly causes the air above you to get pushed down on you if not gravity?

@@starstenaal527 and what.....gravity does not work on a flat surfaces, or are you going to give me earth magnetic core bullshit, have you been to the earth core.....no.....so...do don't tell me what is there underneath the so called core, because you don't know either....

@@starstenaal527Gravity indeed causes air pressure in that gravity gives air weight; but it is NOT the decrease in gravity with altitude that causes the decrease in air pressure with altitude. The reason for that is much simpler: the higher you go in the atmosphere, there will a lesser weight of air above you pushing down.

​@@revanwallaceAgreed.

So the gravitational force is uniform across any distance ? The weight of the air mass isn't created by gravity and its distance ? I can picture pressure decreasing as the air gets thinner above it , but I thought that was the effect of gravity and distance .

She corrects this in the description

Correct, Sabine corrected this in the description: "Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart. "

If that was true, then pressure would increase with the depth of the oceans, - oh, wait, it does!

nope. the air molecules just have a velocity distribution at a given temperature. the kinetic energy of the molecules is what makes the atmosphere "terminate" at certain altitude - there are just not enough molecules to go any higher. remember classical gas is mostly Boltzmann distributed, means there are exponentially less molecules with higher and higher energy. thats also the reason why the air is getting exponentially thinner if you go to higher altitudes

See the follow up in "Who Broke the Greenhouse?" soon. The stratosphere CO2 is even less than the near 0 effect of CO2 below 10,000'.

@@buddymccloskey2809 You typed drivel.

@@grindupBaker Very impressive argument. Dummass.

I’m more afraid of gravity change. Since the widespread availability of backyard trampolines started in the late 60s the earth’s rotation has slowly been knocked out of kilter. It is now becoming critical, countless billions are being spent of so called ‘climate change” yet this more pressing pending disaster is largely ignored. I can solve this problem once and for all using strategically placed counter weights on springs at strategic gravity hotspots ( namely my backyard) and I can do all this for a cool 2.5 billion dollars. Don’t wait for the world to end with us all either shooting off into space of being crushed into the ground. Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute”. We are also hiring the services of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny to solve Climate Change. Santa is going to fly his slay around during his off season and the Easter Bunny will accompany him sprinkling the clouds with left over chocolate which has been finely powdered. This will stain the clouds brown and block the sun ending the dreaded warming that we are assured will one day cause sea levels to rise somehow. This can be done for the bargain price of 1.25 billion ! So what are you waiting for Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute” NOW or they may be no tomorrow !

@@oliverheaviside2539 : He's not wrong.

At best, it's really saying is CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing without saying that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. There's a slight cooling effect, apparently, because CO2 emits infrared efficiently is sparse atmospheres, I guess... I guess carbon dioxide doesn't act like an ideal black body. And this cooling effect is observed in one model from 1968, so all the models must be correct.

​ @kayakMike1000 "this cooling effect is observed in one model" S.B. "this cooling effect is measured by instruments on satellites since 1964".

Yeah, me too lol, and i did these subjects at Uni, but my brain still hurts

If you think quantum mechanics is simpler than this, I would question your grasp of quantum mechanics, or your relative time spent thinking and learning about each of the two subjects, at least. There IS NO understanding of a lot of quantum mechanics. A lot of it is just a bunch of hand waving. There's a quote Feynman supposedly made that went something like: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't, which is basically what I said, though his is much more concise, and he was a leader the field in some aspects, those crazy diagrams, where I am mostly clueless. I just remember all the "A miracle occurs here" when I was learning about it in an introductory course as the core for an engineering degree, and that hand waving occurred a lot more than once, IIRC. Or was that a joke? If so, good one. :-) I saw quantum well FLIR detectors and the like, but I can tell you for a fact that if I were the only one trying to develop them, they wouldn't exist.

@@grindupBaker jokes on you duder, the poles have a tremendous amount of hot air in the stratosphere and there's colder than expected air in the tropical troposphere. Could it be that there are cycles?

That’s the thing with chaotic systems. Complicated and very hard to model. This is the problem with the narrative and how they are using it. There are plenty of things we can do to increase the efficiency of the consumption but we are tackling things we want to not the things that will make a real difference. For example aerogel insulation is about twice as good as PIR insulation but we are not subsidising it and ensuring it’s used in construction. It’s postulated that you could heat a house insulated with aerogel with a candle.

@@davideyres955 “the narrative” and “how they are using it”. Sigh.

@@toungewizzard6994 The video specifically shows why the greenhouse effect doesn't happen because of the Sun: it just provides the energy.

Hey you think you understand something in science you probably don't

Only for simpletons

@@viktorm3840 I don't understand. Are you trying to come back to the so called "Green House effect" of the earth-atmosphere-system which works by entrapping IR-radiation? I fully agree in the theory of that one. I was just commenting on actual green houses. You could set one up on moon If you want. There is no need for an atmosphere outside of the greenhouse for it to work. The important thing is just that the heated air stays where it is, inside the greenhouse.

'convection' not connection

@@dontvoteforanybody3715 autocorrect. thanks for noting. I changed it.

My thoughts exactly. Also, are we certain that glass actually reflects IR that well? I mean, (old-school, self-built) greenhouses would typically use plain, cheap glass, the kind that was used a century ago, to bring cost down, if they use glass at all. Modern lenses are not an example of such a material. They use special optical materials with coatings engineered to have certain properties. And how much energy makes it to the glass as IR? I never really thought about it. As a child, I took it for granted that a greenhouse works by trapping warm air inside. We had one in the garden. You'd think it's the same game as keeping a house warm, except your heat source is solar radiation which you have to let in so you need a lot of glass. Sources of heat loss in the order of importance would be convection, conduction and radiation. Conduction is a problem because glass is thin, double glazing is expensive, but (*) the temperature difference is going to be a lot smaller compared to a heated house. I have never tried to calculated it but I think even in a greenhouse double glazing to reduce conduction would give you better performance than reflecting IR. I can imagine radiation being important at night with the cold night sky and glass roof. * Edited to replace "and" with "but".

hear! hear!

"It is impossible to change a man's belief when he is being paid to believe."

​@@stapleman007why would it be impossible? Pay more!

Or funding from a university

​@@einhalbesbrotdid you hear how much those co2 extractor made on profits last year

Are you referring to the Bohr Model, or to Lewis diagrams? If the former, its inadequacy is itself often overstated. And here's a factoid about that may change the way you see it: in the QM model for the atom, the points of local maximum probability for finding the electron correspond to the Bohr orbit.

Curses Bohr!

I had Bohr's model in mind, but Lewis notation is another great example. Following Bohr's model, the orbital model did improve on what could be explained. Schrodinger's equation was improved by Dirac to include relativistic effects. We ever improve our models, but in the end they are all limited. Such is the greenhouse model for climate change.

If you take that -18C prediction for Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature and, (for modeling/prediction purposes), say that that temperature occurs 5km up in the atmosphere and then apply the ideal gas law what would you predict the temperature of the air at sea level to be?

You need to check out Doug McLean's "Common Misconceptions in Aerodynamics" on UKposts from October 2013. He's a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who explains to other Boeing engineers that what they thought they knew about Navier-Stokes is all wet. Around 26:00 he explains that there's a reciprocal cause-and-effect relationship between velocity and pressure. If you manage to wade through the vorticity field due to the Biot-Savart law without hitting pause, you're a much better physicist than I would have even been, had I not taking the other fork in the road into computer science instead.

Good luck with the brain washing, you have the head for it. No trust is what you can see with your own eyes and the inability to think for yourself. All admirable qualities sought in our educational system. Well done.

your being taught bullshit and lies

Yes! Admitting that you don't fully understand something is usually a sign of intelligence, not the opposite.

They should actually be wrong more than they are right. A 90% failure rate is healthy.

I appreciate that greatly.

@@DavidHRyall of course it's part of the experimental process, but I'm more referring to what they consider their established knowledge base. In this case, the greenhouse effect is a very mature (although still expanding) science with a lot of popular exposure, so I'm sure any scientist worth their salt probably _thinks_ they understand it.

Sabine is extremely confident in herself, allowing herself to admit failures. And imo, her confidence is well deserved. She's legit.

And that gap leaves a lot of room for CC-denying bullshit to slip through.

it's not bs when party X claims something is true, when it contradicts known physics... and then appeals to complicated "models" as excuse to produce the insight how the stuff works from physics point of view... ie upper-atmosphere cooling is dead obvious anyone who has looked upon planck's law and checked the empirical results of co2 measurements from 1905 and onwards... theres plenty of older climate stuff online that shows this parody... claiming after the fact you were caught pants down that you knew you have pants down... despite history showing people were adamant pants are up... is bad science itself... denying part might be elsewhere than you think

So give us an equation please ! I have also a phd in particles scattering (Mie theory etc)

​@Lexoka no one really denies CC, it's just not an emergency. It's gotten an average of 1 degree warmer since the Industrial Revolution.

@@user-ti5rb1mx5x You mean the LIA? ;-)

Sabine is also a good enough communicator to say "this is more complicated than even I thought, so I further educated myself."

It's always "more complicated than you think"...

It has to be very complicated to use water vapor and then make it disappear. Magic. Magic is not science. Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory. If you can believe the theory. If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.

@@kanguruster It has to be complicated. To cover this up. Water vapor is the #1 Greenhouse gas. It does 3/4s of the heating according to GHG theory. If you can believe the theory. If the theory is correct water vapor alone will destroy the planet. There is on average 50 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as CO2.

I wish flat earthers would realize that some things are harder than just "It looks flat to me" and then assume all of science must therefore be wrong!

I noticed that too. But it did not detract from the overall science :)

There are also no satellites orbiting Earth in the stratosphere.

@@ephemerallyfe I did hear something odd there but didn't go back for a re-hear.

@@pompeymonkey3271 It's so fundamental, that, well, it detracts from "overall science" if not this specific topic.

I came looking for this this comment. I was surprised that she made that mistake. I'm sure she'll hear about it. It's fundamental enough that hopefully she'll provide a correction but I agree that it was overall a great video.

Yeah she apologizes for the brain fart in the video comments

You can plainly see H2O gas radiating from average ~2 km above surface on any FTIR from space (since 1964 when they started with IRIS-A on Nimbus 1). You see the 10-13 microns that goes up in the land surface "atmospheric window". You see the huge CO2 notch that cuts far higher (far colder, far less radiated) than the King Water Vapour in the lowest ~2 km above surface. This is why non Water Vapour are called the "well-mixed" ones by scientists, because they go very high without condensing & thus losing most of their LWR power (clouds water drops & ice crystals do have LWR effect into them about 10 microns of course but it's far more powerful when the molecules are spread out as a gas because their molecule pals don't crowd them out). University Chicago MODTRAN has a Sahara Desert sample 1968 FTIR & there are others around like examples of these measured FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra (for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) can be seen at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/h5-Ya2OChqqhpnU.html at 18:07 FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the IRIS Infra-Red Interferometer Spectrometer instruments on the Nimbus-1 (1964 - 1964), Nimbus-2 (1966 - 1969), Nimbus-3 (1969 - 1972) satellites show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite. MODTRAN is this: Software Description MODTRAN - MODerate spectral resolution atmospheric TRANSsmittance algorithm and computer model, developed by AFRL/VSBT in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc. MODTRAN4 has been available to the public since Jan 2000. It remains the state-of-the-art atmospheric band model radiation transport model. PATENT: The Air Force Research Lab, Space Vehicles Directorate, in collaboration with Spectral Sciences, Inc., is pleased to continue the release of MODTRAN4 as a fully UNCLASSIFIED atmospheric radiative transfer code and algorithm. MODTRAN4 follows the prior releases of LOWTRAN (now fully obsolete) and the earlier MODTRAN3 series. MODTRAN4 has been awarded a U.S. Patent, # 5,884,226; 16 March 1999. FEE: Access to MODTRAN4 requires that a new Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) be signed and a fee paid. Source code, data files and PC-executables are all on CD-Rom and distributed by the ONTAR Corporation for the Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL). The fee payment instructions will be supplied upon receipt of the signed NDA. Because the moderate fee (~$300) includes user-support, all receiving parties (Universities, Corporations, and Government Agencies) are subject to the assessment. Furthermore, the NDA term "CORPORATION" only denotes an individual research group. If any single CORPORATION has disparate research groups, each using MODTRAN4 in a different capacity, then the fee applies separately to each group. To do otherwise (distribute across research applications) constitutes secondary re-distribution, which must be individually negotiated with the AIR FORCE. DESCRIPTION: The Moderate Resolution Transmittance (MODTRAN) Code calculates atmospheric transmittance and radiance for frequencies from 0 to 50,000 cm-1 at moderate spectral resolution, primarily 2 cm-1 (20 cm-1 in the UV). The original development of MODTRAN was driven by a need for higher spectral resolution and greater accuracy than that provided by the LOWTRAN series of band model algorithms. Except for its molecular band model parameterization, MODTRAN adopts all the LOWTRAN 7 capabilities, including spherical refractive geometry, solar and lunar source functions, and scattering (Rayleigh, Mie, single and multiple), and default profiles (gases, aerosols, clouds, fogs, and rain). CURRENT CAPABILITIES: The current release is MODTRAN4, version 3.1. This version number connotes the additions of some errata and new physics since MODTRAN4 was first patented and released. The major developments in MODTRAN4 are the implementation of a correlated-k algorithm (references below) which facilitates accurate calculation of multiple scattering. This essentially permits MODTRAN4 to act as a 'true Beer-Lambert' radiative transfer code, with attenuation/layer now having a physical meaning. More accurate transmittance and radiance calculations will greatly facilitate the analysis of hyperspectral imaging data. The other major addition to MODTRAN has been to provide sets of Bi-directional Radiance Distribution Functions (BRDFs) that permit the surface scattering to be other than Lambertian. The combination of correlated-K and BRDFs has greatly improved the scattering accuracy, as has the implementation of azimuthal asymmetries.

The lack of understanding by the climate scientist proves it’s not based on science. We do know the WEF power cartel is using the fear of climate change to steal farms from the farmers who worked their land for generations

Is co2 glorified humidity?

Water vapor is a more significant greenhouse contributor than is CO2. I am with you. I have heard 50 years of gloom and doom scenarios, and none have been realized. Were any of then true,I would be dead three times over. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but as numerous physicists have comment (Bill Happer and Tyson Freeman among them) it’s contribution is already near its maximum, and will not contribute significantly in the future. The “shoulder” argument Sabine references is bogus. Vibrational molecular energy absorption is quantized, so there are no “soft shoulders”, and a few degrees of temperature increase will widen the CO2 absorption range, but at 273K that effect will be insignificant.

@@hg2. No.

Yes, that's right. I was about to go on about the relevance of water, but it just got too long. So I ended up just saying actually it's more complicated than that...

Without story about water and clouds it is still only half-truth 🤔

As Sabine pointed out, a 20 minutes video can only scratch the (warming) surface of an incredibly complex subject.

Then don't fuckin say you're going to explain it. 😂

@@rogerlie4176 I mean you can simply say upfront that "Both water vapor and greenhouse gases result in the green house effect, but this video is going to focus on the gasses-let me know in the comments of you'd like to see another video covering the water vapor aspect." Then with one sentence you covered your bases, let people know there's more to the (complicated) story, and driven some engagement (go go UKposts algo rhythm).

You are absolutely right. Hard to believe that she makes such a huge mistake. Just ridiculous.

Why are you lying about your education? ;-)

see Princeton Prof of Physics, William Happer & MIT Prof of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen

the moon landings never happened, and father xmas ain't real either.

It's the latter scenario. The former doesn't make sense.

👍

But remember that the "weight above you to push down" is itself dependent on gravity. Otherwise there would be *no* weight.

@@SpectatorAlius Sure, but over the 50 or so km relevant to the greenhouse effect g doesn't vary much and the pressure very much does. In a hypothetical flat Earth where g doesn't vary with height you would still get the approximately exponential drop-off of atmospheric pressure with height. (Assume this hypothetical Earth is accelerating upwards to provide gravity, and has walls on the edges to keep the atmosphere in.)

she needed to make that mistake so she could poke fun at the flat earthers. Ph Ds are the most arrogant (and most frequently wrong) people on the planet.

if you believe in traceless strain tensors, the weaker gravity in the longitudinal direction is entirely canceled by the "focusing" (converging radial gravity lines-of-force) in the two transverse directions.

No you didn't understand. Sabine's video is pretty poor, more entertainment than education, so it's not your fault.It's actually extremely simple. The troposphere (lowest 80% of Earth's air) is highly vertically turbulent because warm surface air constantly rising, blowing around and falling again somewhere, that's the weather. Where that almost always (not 100% always) doesn't mix with is the tropopause & stratosphere that has horizontal air movement but very little vertical air movement so very little mixing with the troposphere below. Since stratosphere absorbs Sun's UV-B with its ozone it's always been warmest at the top because that's where UV-B arrives first. Since it don't mix vertically much it stays coolest at the bottom and warmest at the top. Troposphere is warmest at the bottom because 2/3rds of sunshine that isn't reflected goes into the ocean (mostly) & land and then comes out again into the air. -------- The "greenhouse effect" is just that cooler things radiate less than warmer things so if you picture the lowest 12 km as 120 air layers each 100 m thick then layer 1 absorbs 90% of what comes up from surface & only 10% gets through. The H2O, CO2, CH4 etcetera in layer 1 also MANUFACTURE radiation just like the surface does and they send some upwards but because it's a TINY BIT colder than surface it radiates upwards a TINY BIT less than the 90% that it absorbed from surface and incorporated into its own heat, so it very slightly reduced the radiation going up to less than that which came up from the surface. So now think of the other 119 layers each 100 m thick and each one absorbing some radiation from the layers below and letting some through and sending up a bit of its own it manufactured, but always less with each layer because it keeps getting colder with height. So by the time it's going up from layer 120 the 396 w/m**2 heading up from surface has been reduced to maybe 230 w/m**2 (I don't know). ------------- The stratosphere is challenging to explain to you though I know well enough. It's clear to you that it can't do the same as I just described because that effect clearly required the temperature to keep going down as height increases and it does the opposite of that in the stratosphere (because of UV-B & ozone) so you might think offhand that the more GHGs there are in the stratosphere the more Earth radiates out to space because each stratosphere layer (like arbitrary 100 m layers) )manufactures more than it absorbed from below, because it keeps getting warmer and warmer manufactures-radiates more, which would cool the stratosphere and all below. But it's more complicated because it depends on whether the gas is "well -mixed". Specifically H2O gas (water vapour) is massively poorly mixed because it converts into water & ice so H2O gas is strong to 2 km up and then declines rapidly to very little. This means that more H2O gas in the stratosphere causes warming because even though stratosphere gets warmer with height it doesn't get as warm as 2 km from surface where H2O gas is mostly radiating from. However, more CO2 or O3 gas in the stratosphere causes cooling because they are well mixed up the troposphere and have a powerful narrow centre wavelength part that has absorbed all radiation from below in those frequencies so it's radiating entirely upwards from the COLDEST place in the air, top of troposphere (bottom of stratosphere). It's getting too wordy so see FTIRs at 30:55 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/q12SlmORhY6fu2w.html You see the base of the CO2 & O3 notches at their peak absorption wavelengths over the Sahara Desert and over the Mediterranean Sea. It goes flat because it's manufacturing from the coldest place in air, top of troposphere (bottom of stratosphere). But note the little spike in the middle of those, that's the stratospheric cooling effect. Obviously, those spikes mean MORE energy being radiated to space (it's higher power than the lower flat part on either side) and that's energy coming from the stratosphere. Also note over Antarctica how the "greenhouse effect" is backwards for Antarctica in winter. That's because the troposphere lapse rate is backwards (thermal inversions) because there's no sunshine to warm the ground (warm the ice) but warmer air is arriving high above from further north (the Polar Cell, Jet Streams and all that topic) and descending to warm the surface so there's lots of inverted air temperature which causes the "greenhouse effect" to work backwards there with increased "greenhouse gases" causing cooling there in winter. Look at my explanation of the "greenhouse effect" at the start and think about with the air getting WARMER with height and you easily see that would work backwards with the "greenhouse gases" sending MORE to space than the surface below radiated up so the "greenhouse effect" working backwards and causing cooling instead of warming. That is what happens when the surface is colder than 228K and this has all been measured continuously since 1964. ----------- For the average Earth lapse rate and for the 1969 original lapse rate modeling (lousy old computers) of change through the troposphere & stratosphere see at 23:08 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/kZOae6acammItJc.html

"If I've understood this correctly" No. The warmer troposphere and the colder stratosphere isn't the cause, but the result of 'making it more difficult for heat to escape' !

@tsb3093 Yes all these basic items are worth noting because they are subject to minimal uncertainty so gets them out of the way, straightforward. Like you I start with all the Basics (in March-May 2013 for me). So if I take Antarctic sea ice loss same as Arctic Ocean sea ice loss specifically for this "total energy in the system" topic, because it's all ultra-minor anyway just like you said ("I imagine it’s only a small percentage of the total energy") then a good approximation of all ice reduction of Earth (all 5 usual groupings that it gets separated into) last decade rate or some such is 1,200 Gt/year and by trivial calculation that I'm doing without calculator that needs 0.40 Zettajoules/year to melt it. So here it is in a table shown as a portion of your "total energy in the system" which is Earth's energy imbalance (EEI) which is the present global heater I've shown as (a) the global heater for last 12 months (b) the global heater as the present point on the trend line, from ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hImVqqRpp32qsKs.html at 1:06 Here the simple table: w/m**2 Zettajoules per year 1.57 25.1 The global heater for last 12 months 1.45 23.2 The global heater as the present point on the trend line 0.025 0.40 Being used to melt the 1,200 Gt/year of ice (obviously, only the annual ice REDUCTION and not the annual melting and re-forming) So your " I imagine it’s only a small percentage of the total energy in the system" is 0.40 / 23.2 = 1.7% of the global heater, yes it's a small percentage.

@@grindupBaker Is there a way to estimate how much heat is absorbed by evaporation?

​@@davidcroft7381 The latent heat of evaporation is well known but I'm not sure that's your question. It's entirely unclear what your question is but whatever it is, if a person could figure that out then the answer is likely rather simple and accurately known. For example just for illustration it's known that about 13 trillion tonnes of H2O gas are typically in the atmosphere and it has all been changed to water and ice and rained out and replaced over about 9 days so one of the thousands of simple things I did in 2013 was simply calculate that latent heat of evaporation 13 * 10**15 kg * 4,200 joules / degrees * 600 degrees equivalent latent heat = 3.28 * 10**22 joules (32.8 Zettajoules) every 9 days of energy transported from the tropical ocean surface into the air and wafted around Earth on the breezes. That is 3.28 * 10**22 / (9 days * 24 hours * 3600 seconds) = 4.22 * 10**16 Watts (42.2 Petawatts) which is 83 w/m**2 for Earth (equalling for example ~1/3rd of absorbed solar radiation). I then noted back in 2013 that the Earth's energy budget diagrams had latent heat at 78 & 80 w/m**2 (they vary a bit) so my shit-simple quickie calculation I just did was 4%-6% bigger than correct, a good quick approximation. Is that the sort of question you were asking or were you asking something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ?

Actually trying to recreate some research helps (or at least helped me). Reading the paper (or actually the 2 papers we started from) I thought it was easy, half a year later, having dug through 3 layers of references I knew it was easy, but not like I at first thought it was ;-)

You still don't understand.

A or B? A: we don’t fully understand climate change, let’s ignore it. B: we don’t fully understand climate change, let’s be cautious.

@@jakecostanza802 B would be my answer...

@@irgendwieanders2121 I emailed this vid to Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert and he replied that Sabine had asked him questions just to clarify his research. She's done an excellent job to make his research more easily understood!! So I find this very exciting.

I think it's only a modest charge for refills.

What you do is click on the little gear wheel bpttom right of UKposts playing and select speed - make it 75 per cent. I do this anyway.

absolutely necessary! to not being fired, and trown out of youtube.

R E C Y C L I N G is a sc4m

C0mpanies didn't want to stop using plastic so they blamed us for not "R E C Y C L I N G"

Use glass bottles instead and wash them.

@@armouredghoul8279simply drink tap water😜

I’m going to be completely honest……. I’m all for science education, and this video is pretty good, but I’m not sure if the general public needs to know, or is capable of understanding in any way, the subtle nuances and complexities of (exactly how) greenhouse gases cause warming It is more than sufficient for the public to know the basic point, that higher greenhouse gas concentrations leads to warming, and that therefore we will need to attempt to control greenhouse gas emissions as part of any effective climate strategy

​@@ifbfmto9338 I must recognise, your comment, give me to an dilemma: 1º True is needed, if not, mankind is only a farm in the hands of some 'special people'. And I , on science since 1980, point for true, for honesty, the roots of any, any, science. 2º Social science, tell us that most part of mankind,,,,,,,, to tell it on polite view, do not have science and true as its most high value,,,,,,,,,,, I hope you understand me. So, yes, probably you have reason, but if we do this way, all mankind should, always, be cheated, swindled and robbed, yesterday, with 'the big-bad sadam hussein and his big and numerous massive destruction weapons', on 2011, with 'the big H1N1 mortality for all planet',,,,,,,,, about COVID,,,, you have your minds, they are the best judge,,,,,,,,,,, since 2005, 'the bad green-house' is going to give Mediterranean sea to Madrid, to Paris, and New-York (And Gozila) destroyed (It is nice to see all disaster on this city, ¿There are no other in the universe?),,,,,,,,, and so, on,,,,, forever. But on the other side, I know (I am 62 years old, more knows the evil for age, than for being the evil) how mankind, ,,,,,,,, is. So, yes, I can no solve this dilemma. For me, I have my choice, work, study, hard, for the true, hard,,,,, But for most, the true, is ,,,,,,,,,, other thing. Ifbfmto,,,,,,,,,,,,,, your words are not vane,,,,,,,, history is this way, now, and in Roma.

I’m more afraid of gravity change. Since the widespread availability of backyard trampolines started in the late 60s the earth’s rotation has slowly been knocked out of kilter. It is now becoming critical, countless billions are being spent of so called ‘climate change” yet this more pressing pending disaster is largely ignored. I can solve this problem once and for all using strategically placed counter weights on springs at strategic gravity hotspots ( namely my backyard) and I can do all this for a cool 2.5 billion dollars. Don’t wait for the world to end with us all either shooting off into space of being crushed into the ground. Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute”. We are also hiring the services of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny to solve Climate Change. Santa is going to fly his slay around during his off season and the Easter Bunny will accompany him sprinkling the clouds with left over chocolate which has been finely powdered. This will stain the clouds brown and block the sun ending the dreaded warming that we are assured will one day cause sea levels to rise somehow. This can be done for the bargain price of 1.25 billion ! So what are you waiting for Send your tax deductible donation to the “Harvest the gullible fools Institute” NOW or they may be no tomorrow !

Absolutely and I've been pointing that out for 8 years, but it's hard to argue against the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere anyway when it's (Earth's radiation to space) been actually measured continuously by satellite instrument since 1964 (IRIS-A on Nimbus 1) and is clearly seen in the sample FTIRS over the Internet the last couple of decades including GooglesTubes videos such as: === at 16:35 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/rmKfnKmqh41omH0.html and 20:31 (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica) === at 18:08 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/h5-Ya2OChqqhpnU.html (4 FTIR samples for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) === at 30:55 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/q12SlmORhY6fu2w.html (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica again) === at 20:09 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qpeBYaKunWilw2w.html (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica again) and for this one at 22:09 to 22:34 hear Professor William van Wijngaarden of York University Toronto who did the study with William Happer explain clearly why the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere works backwards and COOLS THE SURFACE of Antarctica in winter (but only Antarctica and only in winter) for the same reason "greenhouse effect" cools the stratosphere. === at 2:37 at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hn6Yga97iY2I03U.html for 63,000 locations around Earth (grid pixels) measured presumably hundreds or thousands of times at each place from space (averaged) both the radiation both the radiation power emitted to space, after being filtered through the "greenhouse effect" and also the surface temperature below that radiation, so it's a fairly accurate measure of how much warming, or COOLING, effect there is at all locations around Earth due to "greenhouse effect", which COOLS when surface is below -45 degrees, as shown, and warms when surface is above -45 degrees, with the warming effect getting stronger as the surface gets warmer. Interesting science stuff. IMPORTANT: This green hash-plot is only for when there were NO CLOUDS IN THE SKY so that it gets the effects or the IR-active gases only and doesn't get interfered with by clouds, which have their own often extremely-powerful version of the "greenhouse effect" (they keep winter nights much warmer than with a clear sky, often dramatically so).

👍

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/aJRmaaSnZ2eSsYk.html

One thing you should keep in mind before you go on the attack. No one who knows science discredits or ignores the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The real questions of importance are these: 1) Will the warming be significant? Sabine's presentation explains why we should expect some warming from CO2, all other things being equal, but she doesn't provide an estimate of the amount of the effect. 2) Will the warming be good or bad? There is plenty of evidence that additional CO2 and warming result in a greening of the planet and higher crop yields,. 3) Are there other factors such as cloud formation physics that are involved that we do not understand enough to draw realistic conclusions about anthropogenic CO2 and 4) Can we trust the global alarmists? They've been shouting "The sky is falling and the seas are rising rapidly and accelerating" for the last 30 years. (E.g. the Maldives were supposed to have been submerged by 2018 according to a prediction by Noel Brown, head of the UN's Environmental Office in New York in 1988.) Yet according to tide gauge data from around the world, the average sea level rise along the coasts has been about 1.8mm/yr for more than 100 years. If there has been any acceleration it is trivial. JR Houston (2021) found an acceleration of .0128mm/yr/yr - which is indeed trivial.

I have studied it a lot as well like you, but without any masters degree. And I don't dispute that our added CO2 does change it a bit. But I am called denier, like your father for the questions I am asking. My questions are plain and simple.. - how much does it actually change the temperature on the earth? No calculations are shown ever! - will that be a problem? I don't see any problem in the temperature rising a fraction, as well if you would purely calculate the radiative forcing, my calculations would end up around 0,7°C for a Co2 doubling. I would like to hear your opinion on this as someone with a masters degree...

@@doctordapp Well, in my region, vintners are happy to cultivate kinds of grape that need more sun and warmth than ever before (that is a couple of hundreds of years, just to be clear) producing better wine. Nice, isn't it? Not really, in the Alps, skiing in winter can only take place in higher altitude, with lower altitude facilities already going out of business. Glaciers in the Alps shrink, rainfall patterns change to the truly erratic but insufficient side, groundwater levels sink, twisters are a thing now and bugs only found far south a decade ago are the new normal. All in all, there is so much more energy in the atmosphere, ground dries up and now common species of trees are already in decline. Mankind set free CO2 that has been sequestered over millions of years in a span of a mere 100 years. We already see the effects. There is no known precedent of CO2 levels rising this sharply in earths history (levels, yes. But speed of change, no). There is no known natural mechanism to catch that much CO2 in such a short period of time we need to keep our civilization (and economy) going the same way as today.

@@wuokawuoka glaciers in the alps shrink and grow. If you look at newspapers from the 1930's you see exactly the same conclusions. After that the glaciers where growing again until the late 70s. So I am still not convinced that all this temperature rise is caused by us. The last market on the thames was in 1814.how was it better then? They can declare the current rise with Co2, but the can't explain the rise in the 30s with the same story. So the story doesn't compile to logic here....

But you don't understand the physics, nor do any climate alarmists.

@@Kenneth-ts7bp So-called climate alarmists (or climatologists, in part) have been saying the same thing for decades - and the data supports what they’ve been saying. Glaciers are receding, the average temperature on the surface of the planet is going up… and the mechanisms for why this is happening is understood (well enough). What do you know that everyone else doesn’t?

@Mathew Kolakowski I understand physics. That's the difference. Anyone who claims CO2 can overheat the planet is clueless and doesn't understand physics. Isn't it ironic that CO2 just keeps increasing agricultural output and not overheating the planet. Why do you think they call Greenland Greenland?

@Mathew Kolakowski It's pretty obvious Sabine doesn't understand greenhouse gases and she's just parroting what someone told her. She made the claim CO2 blocks all outgoing infrared; that is just patently false. It blocks very little and doesn't radiate heat to Earth. If CO2 radiated all its heat, which is very little, it wouldn't rise in the atmosphere. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be hotter and colder. Why do you think CO2 rises out of the oceans? What is it doing when it does that?

The co2 from jets in the stratosphere is capturing infrared warming the air

What are you talking about? Radiative transfer models account for water vapour and all other atmospheric gasses in the same way.

​@@BurnettMaryNot from what I've seen. I specifically looked for a study that covered how low level clouds are a cooler and high level clouds are a warmer, how the cloud coverage varies over time and the relative angle to the sun, how water vapor is a global warmer, how droughts and hurricanes impact the warming, etc ... basically a holistic coverage of water vapor ... and nothing. Models are good, but they are not perfect. I very much remember being lectured to over and over and over again, about how the polar ice caps would be gone in 10 years ... that was around 30 years ago now, so obviously not correct. Also, science requires independent verification, but there is insufficient shared data to replicate the climate models.

⁠@@brianb4898your anecdote about the polar ice caps is a little peculiar. the IPCC report from 1990 makes no mention that the ice caps “will be gone” in 10 years and in fact states that sea level rise will be mostly from thermal expansion and glaciers melting over the following century. So I dunno who you were debating but it wasn’t climate scientists.

Clearly the models are inaccurate because they have not been validated by experimental data. Also, CO2 has been much higher than 400ppm with no irreversible damage to the planet. Climate modelers have acknowledged the inaccuracy of their models that ignore water vapor and changes in sun activity. There are also inaccuracies in temperature measurements which have biased the data to higher overall average temperature of the planet. There are too many variables to make accurate predictions but it is always easy to spread fear by misapplying data interpretations.

Why do you need a computational model of the carbon cycle when we have an actual physical mapping of it? Look up the Keeling curve which empirically measures CO2 levels since 1958 and you will notice that it's jaw-tooth shaped - this perfectly captures the carbon cycle caused by seasons. But you will also notice that the long-term trajectory of this up and down jaw-tooth pattern is that ppm CO2 is indeed increasing every year. This is pretty well known stuff.

I'm sorry about that huge dent in the rear fender of your car. That'll just buff right out you know. Splash some paint on.

But Sabina, are we going to die if Countries don't stop producing CO2? Do we really need to stop using fossil fuels?

Busty babe

At nearly 1.5 degees, it's almost 10% more than the 1950s, and that also means the atmosphere is thinner...takes airplanes longer to takeoff, ask any pilot. 10% change in weather is an enormous effect.

One more who does not get the point that the catastrophe is something which is *going to happen* if we don't act now. And that a 10% difference *all over the world* is something entirely different than a 10% difference between two places on Earth.

At the current rate of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the pH of the ocean will be less than 8.0 by spring of 2053.....we will lose the entire food chain by then an all fish will be extinct much sooner.... ..any doubters should look at the data.

A glasshouse is an analogy - and, as always with analogies, there are things in common (heating of the surface by the sun; a mechanism which reduces cooling) and things which are different (how this mechanism works).

Yes, actually a combination of the two(I know that you understand that). I think that the effect of the reduction in gravity with altitude on atmospheric pressure is tiny compared to the effects of the reduction in gas pushing down on the atmosphere below with altitude.

@@samuellowekey9271 Gravity has a part to play in the diurnal atmospheric temperature. During the day the increased temperature raises the centre of mass of the entire atmospheric column by around 100m - raising its potential energy. During the night, as the temperature reduces, the centre of mass descends back by that 100m thereby compressing the air and raising its temperature by compression/gravity alone. This is the diurnal squeezing effect which is substantial. But do any of the climate models take it into account?

Of course, just like gravity is essentially the same in the space station as on earth.... I don't need to elaborate.

Try and dive 4m down in water. The pressure increase is already immense!... Is it because the gravity is stronger, down there? 😏 Of course not. It's because of the weight of the water above you. Same with air, only it weighs less so you need bigger differences in altitude to feel the difference in pressure. I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmosphere is close enough to the Earth for the gravity to be about equal throughout it. If Earth is the size of a football, the atmosphere is 1 mm thick, something like that.

@@EeezyNoow , in nighttime, the center of mass of the atmosphere sinks back 100m, thus compressing the air, thus INCREASING ITS TEMPERATURE?!... No no no, the air reduces in volume by night BECAUSE the temperature is lower. Therefore, this "compression" does not increase its temperature again! The temperature of a gas only increases if compressed by an outer force, raising its pressure. Not if it just relaxes into a smaller volume because it gets cooler, and at a constant pressure, like in the case of nighttime. It's the ideal gas law: PV = nRT When T sinks PV must decrease. In this case, it's V that decreases, and P stays the same. (Atmospheric pressure is the same in daytime and nighttime, on average.)

Top Facts on Climate Controversy, Fully Explained - See for Yourself! ://ukposts.info/have/v-deo/r56bo7Clq46fu2g.html&ab_channel=IvorCummins

Do not watch this video, it is wrong from start to finish. The mechanism of greenhouse gas heating is very simple--- extra CO2 scatters infrared light, leading to a longer path-length to escape. The mechanism is photon-by-photon, the mean-free-path to scattering is reduced with extra CO2, and so there is NO INTERFERENCE between wavelengths, there are NO COMPLICATIONS, and you can calculate the extra heating simply on the back on an envelope (if you are a physicist) without any problem. Sabine is not a climate scientist, and it shows.

Just adding that density decreases with altitude (less air, less weight, less pressure)

KIS helps Sane thinking.

You forgot Singer/Songwriter: ukposts.info/the/PtRwW9i43BXbCRQa7BJaiA.html

@@RWin-fp5jn Much of what you say is correct. However, the earth is greener in 2019 than 20 years earlier. Check MODIS data at NASA. Increased CO2 is due to more plant matter, not less. None of the supposedly learned "scientists" can explain the causes of every other warming and cooling period in history that occurred before humans walked the planet. But THIS one... THIS one is definitely anthropomorphic. Because it's convenient from a hysterical perspective. During the last glacial maximum, temperatures were only a couple of degrees lower than now. Before the sheeple are convinced that the logical thing to do is cool the planet, we might ask the people who now live where the last glaciers were. I live where the Columbia River lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet was. OK, I just took a poll of my household. We all vote not to cool the planet.

She also sings. Check her other channel.

see Princeton Prof of Physics, William Happer & MIT Prof of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen

see the research of Nir Shaviv on solar energy, clouds, and temperature

I see what you did there!🎶

@@jacob.tudragens yep.

Psychopaths who can't empathize with others don't deserve any empathy. In the end no one actually disbelieves in climate change, there are honest people and there are lying parasites who take advantage of other's empathy. Both know that no one is going to change their mind.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it calculate quaternions to simplify special relativity calculations.

Agreed. Hawking radiation with virtual particles handed me the wrong stick for a while.

Neil deGrasse Tyson needs to hear this

So what was her conclusion? Reducing carbon gas is a waste of money? It's obvious the planet is warming, satellite photos prove that. Wouldn't reducing CO gas slow the effect?

@@TimeTheory2099 Global warming is still a serious problem. The atmospheric mechanism that causes it is a bit more complicated than the standard analogies explain. And most educational illustrations are incorrect as they are overly simplified.

All well & good but what about the simple ladies you'all. I was stunned watching it to note how ironically Sabine had excluded the simple ladies. Gerry Glass ceiling ?

​@@grindupBakerthat's right, as she said in another report: "If you want to be a girl, join the physics club."😊

"I have read that scientists studying ice cores in (I believe ) Antarctica have found that the CO2 level in the atmosphere a few million years ago rose to 4500ppm" That's simply wrong. It's been at least 400 mio years ago that the levels were that high. And ice cores go only back 1 million year! " Since we are all still here, that means that the earth and its inhabitants managed to survive that level of CO2. " Ever heard about 'adaption'....? And that this takes time? "because this guy was a physicist and not a climate scientist " Many climate scientists are physicists. It all depends on their publication record - does it show they have indeed worked on the topic? "To make a long story short, he explained that the effect that CO2 has on something like infrared radiation is not linear like most people believe, but logithmic" That's right. This has been known for over 125 years and is included in each and every calculation.

Very True. Every body talks about radiation only. Convection is also radiation. It leads to transfer of heat from higher temperatures to lower and there is air circulation trying to equilibrium. Nobody talks about the Kinetic theory of gas laws. Strange.

This video is entirely composed of lies.

@@viktorm3840 Miniscule is a better description... it's actually around 0.3%. Even if we actually do achieve 'zero carbon emissions', which would, of course, merely be zero HUMAN-caused carbon emissions (which is a virtually impossible target anyway for a LOT of reasons!) it wouldn't make any difference at all to any supposed 'climate change'. The climate will change as it was going to anyway. And the effort to achieve it will probably ruin the economies of any and all countries which are daft enough to make the attempt.

"some of the climatologists who, although they do not deny that the climate is changing, actually point out that the human contribution to it is actually miniscule" There are next to no climatologists who say this.

"and, when comparing it to natural contributions, like that of volcanic eruptions for example, is largely irrelevant." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Eruptions influence climate for a few years *at most* !! Human influence is about several centuries!

"and energy companies are actually making billions of $$$$$ out of it" Are you delusional?!??!?!?? There's much, much, much more money in *denying* the problem! Fossil fuels and big industry are very well known to finance denying.

"Some of them even go so far as to say that not only is the Earth actually cooling due to us entering a new ice-age," 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Why? Everything in this video is incorrect. Sabine is not an expert in climate science, and this video is a form of soft global warming denial, by incompetently rebutting global warming denier claims.

It is pure nonsense.

It's simply that changes take time: if we would maintain our high CO2 levels for thousands of years, we *will* have changes as large as those. You can read up on this here: 'Explainer: How scientists estimate ‘climate sensitivity’'' (TCR, ECS and ESS)

ukposts.info/have/v-deo/pnp9aW2Je3yl258.html

No, that isn't the "greenhouse effect" and that wouldn't work. The "greenhouse effect" is shit simple but is explained incorrectly almost everywhere on the internet. This video didn't explain "greenhouse effect" incorrectly but there was so much unnecessary babble in it (part of Sabine's Business Model) that you totally failed to grasp it (and I don't blame you). Oh well. Press on.

@@grindupBaker I think you don't know how insulation works in reality. That is the problem. There is a difference, that in insulation, it is also about reducing the contact heat transfer in Z-axis (away from the source). The atmosphere does not really have to deal with this, because gas is a great insulator against contact heat transfer. In effect it is the same. It is a diffusion process of heat deffusing from a heat source to a colder place (house - outside/ earth - space). And the process is also similar. Heat gets transfered from one molecule to the next one. Only difference is, that in insulation, this heat transfer is mostly done in contact. While in the greenhouse effect, it is mostly done by radiation. (Radiation is also important in houses, but puting a dense radiation blocker in is a very easy thing. E.g. silicates (glass) is a great IR blocker) To slow this diffusion you can simply add additional barriers. In the atmosphere, this means more greenhouse gases. In insulation, you add another layer of insulation.

@@aurelspecker6740 Your comment starting this thread isn't the "greenhouse effect" and that wouldn't work. The "greenhouse effect" is shit simple but is explained incorrectly almost everywhere on the internet. This video didn't explain "greenhouse effect" incorrectly but there was so much unnecessary babble in it (part of Sabine's Business Model) that you totally failed to grasp it (and I don't blame you). There's no audience for science comments here so I think I'll not bother

There is a hypothesis that Earth actually went through a "snowball planet" period.

Then you'd have to sing about chocolate snow.

@@MagruderSpoots chocolate glaciers kilometers thick, MmmMMmMMm 🥹

The Earth has been through much colder and much warmer periods. It's crazy to think for example that in 10000 years from now our seasons will be reversed, it will be Summer where it is now Winter, and Winter where it's currently Summer. The hypothesis that CO2 has such a big influence on global temperature is really not as scientifically solid as we are being led to believe.

@@Patatmetmayo the part you missed is that we did not have 8 billion people on the planet during those much warmer or colder times in the past.

"Temperature is the average kinetic energy of all the gas molecules in a system" Not the same, but the two are linked. "An increase in temperature would raise air pressure" No. A change in volume is also possible. p*V = n * R * T "Wouldn’t more radiating molecules higher in the atmosphere mean more radiation being able to be radiated out to space?" You obviously missed to understand the point of the PhD-version. Emission from higher in the atmosphere is *always* less efficient than from the surface directly. More molecules higher above would move the emission height even higher, making the emission even less efficiently!

"dependent on the oxygen, nitrogen and argon non radiating molecules". Yes, a vibrating IR-active molecule transfers the energy on collision with N2, O2, whatever, increasing heat, 2.7 billion per second. "Wouldn’t more radiating molecules higher in the atmosphere mean more radiation being able to be radiated out to space?". Only in the stratosphere, not in the troposphere (lowest 80% of all air molecules so the largest effect). It's the balance between the amount of LWR from below absorbed by the IR-active molecules, which does not depend on the temperature of the air parcel, and the LWR manufactured & emitted upwards by the IR-active molecules, which does depend on the temperature of the air parcel. Since it gets cooler with altitude, the net result is less LWR emitted upwards. I'm finding this particular question passing strange the last 10 years since this aspect has been MEASURED FROM SPACE CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1964 (IRIS-A on Nimbus 1) and since sample plots have been all over the internet for at least 15 years. Nonetheless, I'm taking you as a person interested and not one of the Vast Army of drive-by Trolls you can read in the hundreds of Fake Question & Drivel comments below. The so-called "greenhouse effect" (GHE) in Earth's troposphere does work backwards and cause cooling like you incorrectly supposed only when surface temperature is below 228K (-45 degrees) and the GHE gets increasingly more powerful, causing more warming, as surface temperature increases per the plot with millions of measurements from space all over Earth (a vast range of surface temperatures measured, a green hash) at one of my links below. From my correct reasoning of the physics above I did 8 years ago I always knew that it would show less GHE, even backwards GHE, in bitter-cold winter polar regions, knew for a couple years or more before I came across the measurement proof on the internet. See below for MEASUREMENT FROM SPACE clearly showing H2O gas, CO2 (huge notch) & O3 (little notch) warming the surface for Sahara, Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Iraq but COOLING the surface of Antarctica in winter (because, obviously, the troposphere gets warmer with altitude just like the stratosphere). See clearly the centre CO2 & O3 maximum power centre spikes in the stratosphere causing cooling just like you said, but only the tiny stratosphere spike effect shown, so it's totally overwhelmed by troposphere warming effect. The 5 or so groups of physicists producing varying (by about 20%) results all do a 120--layer calculation (or some such) for the top of troposphere and a separate layered calculation for the stratosphere and the GHE is a more powerful effect at the top of troposphere because the stratosphere gases reduce it (actually, I need to check that because stratosphere is cooling for well-mixed gases by warming for H2O gas, but it's too advanced for a comment in this venue consisting of >99.9% liars & idiots, I might never bother). ---------- Measured from space since 1964 samples and the green hash plot of the varying (GREATLY VARYING) "greenhouse effect" (GHE) all over Earth (note the backwards GHE over Antarctica in winter because no sunshine so the heat is descending instead of ascending): ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hn6Yga97iY2I03U.html at 3:50 ukposts.info/have/v-deo/h5-Ya2OChqqhpnU.html at 18:07 (4 FTIR samples for western tropical Pacific Ocean, Sahara Desert, Antarctica & southern Iraq) ukposts.info/have/v-deo/q12SlmORhY6fu2w.html at 30:55 (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica) ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qpeBYaKunWilw2w.html at 17:09 and 20:18 (3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica) ----------------- climatemodelsuchicagoedumodtranmodtrandochtml It has one comparison with Sahara Desert measurement to prove it's accuracy. The measured since 1964 are IRIS on Nimbus series. At 1969 it's: Nimbus 3 IRIS instrument satellite 1969 Nimbus 3, the third in a series of second-generation meteorological research-and-development satellites, was designed to serve as a stabilized, earth-oriented platform for the testing of advanced meteorological sensor systems and the collecting of meteorological data. The polar-orbiting spacecraft consisted of three major elements: (1) a sensory ring, (2) solar paddles, and (3) the control system housing. The solar paddles and the control system housing were connected to the sensory ring by a truss structure, giving the satellite the appearance of an ocean buoy. Mission/Portal Page: nssdcgsfcnasagovnmcmasterCatalogdo ? sc=1969-037A Launch Vehicle: Thor-Agena Instruments: HRIR (High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer) IDCS (Image Dissector Camera System), IRIS (Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer), IRLS (Interrogation, Recording and Location System), MRIR (Medium-Resolution Infrared Radiometer) MUSE (Monitor of Ultraviolet Solar Energy) RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) SIRS (Satellite Infrared Spectrometer) ............ etc etc etc

"The flow of energy from the sun to the earth is constant". Not constant, it varies on an essentially regular basis in 2 unrelated ways (1) The Sun is 2.5 million kms away from the centre of Earth's circular orbit (2) Sun's output varies sort-of sinusoidally on an approximate 11-year cycle (it varies a bit rather randomly). The rest is silly babbling, ignorant crap, in an analogy form because Earth's radiation spectrum to space has been measured continuously since 1964 (IRIS-A on Nimbus-1) such as at ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qpeBYaKunWilw2w.html

Does heat go from a cold body to a warm body? Which is cooler,the ocean(earth's surface) or the atmosphere?

@@itsgottobesaid4269 Review the “CO2 ditch”.

There was only one "SCIENTIST" God of Thunder ukposts.info/the/hFXHYedYnjFo2ZbLwhiraA.html