We have stop perpetuating the myth that the Earth Surface is radiating more than trace amounts of infared. The Earth's energy (99%) is dissipated thru conduction and convection to the top of the atmosphere where it will then radiate to space. There is no Infared for CO2 to absorb. The model shown here is the NASA Earth Energy Balance Model. It's fatally flawed. This is basic physics. My comment is not directed at the presenter. The content has been presented well.
The 70-85% absorbed by GHGs at 3:36 is asserted by Costas & Shine 2012 published paper to be 95% (20+-4 w/m**2 to space and 376 w/m**2 absorbed by GHGs). Kevin Trenberth et al 1997 (KT97) published paper was 90% absorbed by GHGs but it was ad hoc & the Costas & Shine 2012 is measured CERES analysis so I'm pretty sure it'll be adopted by scientists. Missing from video is the explanation that 55% of the surface radiation is manufactured (MANUFACTURED) by so-called "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" and sent to space for a total of 55%+5%=60% sent to space by Earth (rather than the 15% to 30% shown). The fact that only 60% of the surface radiation goes to space instead of 100% is the so-called "greenhouse effect" that makes Earth 33 degrees warmer than without it. Hear David Randall mention my 60% factor (actually 0.608 now) and call it "Earth's bulk Emissivity" at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FjE4GDC7afQ.html at 6:46 to 7:05
X typed "Its further heat transfer is by convection". Wrong. Any parcel of IR-active molecules radiates LWR at its boundary proportional to Kelvin**4 so heat transfer is by convection-conduction, H2O phase change liquid-gas & LWR, all 3 participate. X typed "=18 X 25 ---> 450 times more temperature forcing for water vapor than carbon dioxide" is WILDLY-INCORRECT Junk Science rubbish at the scientific understanding level of an 8 year old British Primary School child. It's MEASURED FROM SPACE SINCE 1964 and proportions are roughly 3 parts H2O gas warming effect and 1 part CO2 warming effect (the 13-17 micron band, close to the Earth's power peak). See 3 FTIR samples measured in 1970 for Sahara Desert, Mediterranean Sea & Antarctica again at 20:09 and explained for CO2 at 17:10 onwards at rgP-lwf2tb8 (BRAINDEADGOOGLESAI DELETES if the link to its own GOOGLES video of a physicist explaining a published scientific paper about this video topic is included here so you figure it out yourself).
4:50 When you get into high school you'll understand the idea of saturation better. This is how my Falls Church, VA high school George C. Marshall of the late 1970s taught of earth's greenhouse effect. Earth's greenhouse effect is the model of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to the earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the surface, typically the earth. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is from water vapor. This is a short and definitive description of the greenhouse effect. It is impossible to make a system in saturation such as earth's greenhouse effect have further effect by increasing its active elements. Global warming cannot be due to greenhouse gases because the only system they are active in is already in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. If earth's greenhouse effect were not in saturation then there would be huge changes in the greenhouse effect temperature retention all over the world based on how much humidity was in the air. This would be extremely exaggerated if it were true, which it is not, that some organizations cite as 33°C of average increased temperature for the greenhouse effect, where the scientific recognized average is 5.55°C. At 1% tropospheric average water vapor and 0.04% CO2: (1.00% water vapor) / (0.04% carbon dioxide) = 25 times more concentration of water vapor than than carbon dioxide. Water vapor CO2e=18 X 25 ---> 450 times more temperature forcing for water vapor than carbon dioxide. Even if earth's greenhouse effect were not in saturation CO2 would have no significant effect in it.
I'm revising for my final IB exams and your videos really helped me understand topics that I was struggling with for the past two years! I think it would be really helpful for students if you continued making more videos :)
reabsorption is defined as molecules reentering the blood stream, not the secretion of molecules back into the nephron tubules (via 3:05); the specification between secretion and reabsorption should be included as they are not the same and indicate where the flow of molecules is going.
I really do not understand why you have so few calls. I really like your content. I would appreciate when you would make some more videos - they helped me a lot :D Keep up the the good work
