“The Physics of Climate Change” 

@@raphielohnef4678 Because the absorption spectrum shows that it is. I thought everyone knew that. Odd question.

This is correct. Co2 works logarithmically. B/c most people don't go that far in math they are likely to assert that doubling in X means an arithmetic or geometric sequence.

@@kimlibera663 You and Howard are both correct. However I would say the misunderstanding stems from two factors (1) the gases H2O Co2 etc absorb radiation, not heat (2) almost all of the radiation that is in the absorbing spectra of these gases has already been absorbed - not much gets through. The system is radiation limited, not absorbing gas limited.

I don't think it matters at all. There is only a trace amount of IR in the atmosphere. Radiation is only dominant in vacuum conditions (see S-B Law). Heat transport in an atmosphere is thru conduction and convection. The GHG Hypothesis bases on radiation is laughable. The atmosphere acts like the air in a storm window. it insulates us somewhat and allows the earth to cool more slowly. CO2 has a microscopic impact on Earth's Surface temp.

Hence 2023 was the hottest year on record and 2024 is hotter yet. Thanks for the advance warning that this isn't really happening.

Your argument literally makes no sense, his whole explanation is about heart energy from the sun.

Apparently you did send in the clowns. You are wrong.

You are right! The GHE as the idea of a warming sweather around the planet is beyond simplification! haha First off, the atmosphere is OPEN, not closed -- like we can see the stars and the moon. Duh! This silly hypothesis is easily refuted: the 2nd law of thermodynamics say that a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer Earth surface... There is no such thing as "back radiation" -- the long wave IR cannot make a U-turn and go backt to the origin and change how it orignially was radiated -- this is UTTER NONSENSE (and is breaking the 1st law of thermodynamics)!... Done. GHE refuted! :) 😅🤣😂

The CO2 in it is.

you and the 1st questioner are spot on. His concepts in the slides on the greenhouse effect are fundamental flawed, as u suggest.

@@MariaMartinez-researcher ... wrong! CO2 is a linear 3-atomic molecule with an induced dipolmoment of just 0.11D, which converts heat into radiation, which has a COOLING effect to the earth's atmosphere!

Actually, if you heat the aluminum bar, the bar will start to radiate energy back to the candle, which will heat up the candle by a small fraction. Figuratively, you can think of the aluminum bar causing a "heat echo" as it is hit with energy, emitting back some of the heat energy the candle is losing. This enables the aluminum bar to effectively act as an energy source to the candle, albeit it's not providing anywhere near the amount of energy the candle is, and it is only permitted to act like an energy source for as long as the candle allows it. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere around the earth also cause "heat echoes". These "heat echoes" due to the greenhouse gases effectively act as energy sources in addition to the energy we get from the sun, and helps heat up earth's surface above the freezing point of water. But they are only permitted to act like this for as long as the earth and, ultimately, the sun allow it.

@@flensdude ... there is no such thing as "heat echos", that is complete nonsense! You mix up heat (molecular kinetic energy) and radiation (photons). Energy in form of heat gets transported by conduction (molecular collisions), but energy in form of radiation like infrared radiation (1um..100um) gets tranmitted by EM-waves (photons) with the speed of light. So heat cannot be emitted, because only radiation can be emitted! You need upfront a process, which converts heat into radiation. That is the function of infrared active trace gases (upto 4% H2O and only 0.04% CO2) in the atmosphere, because they have the necessary dipolmoment DM (H2O: permanent DM 1,84D and CO2: induced DM of just 0.11D) for such a conversion capability. That is why such infrared active trace gases convert heat (transfered by conduction from N2, O2 & Ar onto H2O & CO2) of the atmosphere into infrared radiation, which gets emitted isotropic into space. That is COOLING the atmosphere. The back radiation cannot warm the earth surface, because its spectra lines carries only frequencies smaller than the infrared spectra emitted by the earth surface. Remember Einstein's equation: E=h*f ... actually ... from what source did you get your phantasies about your funny "heat echos"?!? ... ;-)

Yeah but humans can't affect any of those other things you listed so they don't really make good vectors for mass panic and fear-mongering

"The more heat radiated back to earth, the more energy will be radiated out" Why is that?

​@@patrickb.4749 It's more like a cavity with heat radiating back and forth, but it's a leaky cavity, so some heat is absorbed with each reflection. So, if the reflection rate of the earth is Re, and of the atmosphere Ra, and if the Intensity of the sun is Is, then the amount of light reflected by the Earth's surface is Is*Re, and of this Is*Re*Ra is reflected back from the atmosphere, and of this Is*Re*Ra*Re bounces off the Earth again. So after N reflections, the amount of light left would be Is*(Re*Ra)^N. The rest of the light is absorbed, either by the Earth or by the atmosphere. If Re (a proportion between 0 and 1) is reflected by the Earth, then 1-Re is what's absorbed. So the total amount of light absorbed by the Earth after many backreflections would be Is*(1-Re)+Is*Re*Ra*(1-Re)+Is*(Re*Ra)^2*(1-Re)+..., or factored out: Is*(1-Re)*[(Re+Ra)^0+(Re*Ra)^1+(Re*Ra)^2+...]. That expansion factor is called a geometric series and has a closed form: 1+a+a^2+a^3... = 1/(1-a), so the total amount absorbed by the Earth is Is*(1-Re)/(1-Re*Ra). I know about this math because it's the same as for Fabry-Perot oscillations in my optics experiments.

@@hixidom2274 I'm confused, because you are talking about reflection rather than absorbtion and re-emission. Greenhouse gases do not reflect anything so now I'm curious for more. You probably have an article with more details. What I am more interested in is how the person I am responding to accounts for the Earth radiating more in response to absorbing more without heating up.

@@hixidom2274 So reflection is not relevant after all? That is a shame. I see a lot of people in here who proclaim to know something nobody else knows or acknowledges but when obvious questions are asked they are less than enthusiastic to answer.

No, people would burn anyone trying to explain the changing of warm and cold periods at stake because they think cant understand him. Sounds like what many of the denier comments here want to do.

Medieval Warm Period made more shipping routes avail.

It's not, they are lying and have fiddled the records

Criticism of the 200 years (overripe) "greenhouse gas theory" going back to Fourier in 1824 (He was more circumspect and closer to reality than the IPCC) "1. There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without simultaneously creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum, and in the open atmosphere of our planet, there is nowhere for energy to hide other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented, and even if it were, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer. 2. Quite the opposite. The earth would be warmer if there were to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course). Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g., Sahara, Namib, and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures. The absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally compared to an atmosphere with greater water vapor and at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort of “greenhouse effect” in reverse. 3. That statement only holds true in high-humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space - void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not give you a fever, and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer. 4. If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to exist. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate-related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached. 5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again - quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 7. Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling. 8. An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed). 9. A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality - 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 - but in the much-heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget, they DO combine. Let's look at the numbers, then. According to the accepted Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (see below), the earth's surface averages 168 W/m2 for solar absorption. K-T has the surface lose much of that energy by convection and evapotranspiration, though, so that 324 W/m2 of back-radiated power brings the surface up to 390 W/m2, corresponding to 15°. But in this case we'll reduce convective and evapotranspirative heat loss to zero, which leaves us with the original 168 W/m2. Now, within these parameters, how much extra back-radiation is required to bring the surface up to 77°? SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR W/m2, for a total of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY TWO W/m2, which corresponds to 77°. (Bonus question: If the greenhouse effect generates enough radiative power to raise the earth's temperature to 77°, but most of this heat is dissipated, then why is there no sign of this excess energy being blasted away from the earth? Satellites only see the earth emitting 240 W/m2.) The average solar irradiance for a blackbody earth - one that absorbs every photon the sun can provide - is 342 W/m2, corresponding to an average temperature of 5.5°. Yet here, illustrious academia estimates conjure 852 W/m2 out of nothing 10. “Radiative equilibrium” is an arbitrary construct to BEGIN with. You just subtract a planet's reflectance from the available irradiance and divide by 4. That's IT. There ARE no other steps. Since Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight, then, 1368 W/m2 × 0.7 = 957.6 W/m2. Dividing by 4 gives you 239.4 W/m2, so that becomes earth's equilibrium figure and this corresponds to a temperature of 255Kelvin. Now, is the earth's average SURFACE temperature 255K? No, it's warmer. So you say that “somewhere up there” is where earth's radiative equilibrium is to be found, somewhere in the troposphere. It's all so silly. But once you convince yourself that the surface does NOT principally determine the earth's temperature, you can convince yourself that it IS determined by the atmosphere and that “greenhouse gases” RAISE the “equilibrium point” higher and higher. And as you see, you can even go as far as asserting that the surface absorbs no sunlight." Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NS55lXf4LZk.htmlsi=OIcSya5wSSgOKdjt

Actually in the year 1000 they were!

DavidFMayerPhD Yes, you are correct. The amount of outgoing infrared radiation absorbed by CO2 does depend on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is the whole point. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere attenuates the rate of IR penetrating the atmosphere and escaping to space. The earth will warm up to re-equilibrate the incoming and outgoing rates of radiative energy. At present concentrations, the amount upwelling IR that is intercepted by atmospheric CO2 is about 10% of the total IR budget. This can be estimated by looking at the IR radiation at the top of the atmosphere and it can be corroborated with radiative transfer models and direct measurement. At present concentrations, CO2 gas in the atmosphere contributes to about 20% of the total greenhouse effect, water vapour is responsible for about 50% and clouds 25%. The remainder of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to other greenhouse gases. So even if the concentration of water vapour is 25 times that of CO2, CO2 is still contributes 40% of what water vapour does. That is not insignificant. It also demonstrates that on a mol/mol basis, CO2 is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than water vapour.

@@BurnettMary The very idea of attributing domination of climate to a single variable is preposterous. Your explanation is so oversimplified that it is meaningless. NOBODY understands Climate. I don't claim to. There are far too many independent variables; when localized, they are in the billions, depending on level of discretization. But those who DO CLAIM to understand climate are either fools or charlatans. The ONLY prediction about Climate that I will make is that, 200 years from now, ALL current climate models will be considered to be on a kindergarten level.

@@BurnettMary You (and John Ruhl) forget that CO2 is overlapped by H2O by more than 70% on average. That leaves CO2 to be responsible for about 3% or less of the radiative forcing. Not 10% as he said. However, if we take away all other GHG, and have only 400ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere, the 10% claim is more or less correct. CO2 isn't a black body, or at least it hasn't a smooth Planck curve like a black body radiates. It's radiation and absorption concentrated in the 13 - 17um region with relatively steep curves. It doesn't heat up, because it re emits the same wavelength as it received. Say that CO2 is responsible for 10%, the calculations of 3°C increase when doubling CO2 is correct, but it is actually only 3% or less due to the overlap with H2O. That gives us about 0.9°C increase for each doubling. A 40% increase will therfor contribute to only 0.63°C increase. Because, instead of contributing with 79W/m^2 forcing, it contributes with 9-10W/m^2 forcing. He also forget that the energy budget isn't calculated from a constant radiation flux for each wavelength, but the Earth Planck curve show us that the radiation flux at 15um (193K) is less than at 10um (288K). So the forcing from CO2 is even less than 9W/m^2. He also fails to mention how CO2 actually distribute incoming radiation in a proper way. Approx 95% of the 15um band did not left the Earth in 1850 at 280ppmv, so the remaining 5% can be absorbed no matter how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere. Yes, I know. The saturation argument is debunked, but my point is that isotropic scattering of incoming radiation does not reflect more of that 15um band back to Earth than the 5% we got left to saturate.

@@vidarinorge7711 If John Ruhl and I have forgotten that “CO2 is overlapped by H2O by more than 70% on average”, then it is just as well because it is a fallacy. Where did you come across that misinformation, or did you make it up yourself? Either way, it is unscientific. To be fair, in a moist tropical atmosphere near the earth’s surface, water vapor does almost, but not entirely saturate the spectrum with the effect of reducing the influence of CO2 ( near the surface ). In any case it doesn’t matter because the problem with this argument is that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO2 escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. CO2 and water vapor spectral lines don’t fully overlap anyway. I recommend that you do the radiative transfer calculation to see for yourself. In fact just about everything you have said is simply misinformation and if you do go and run the radiative transfer calculations, you will understand why your figures are wrong. By the way, you can check out, Schmidt et al., “Attribution of the Present-Day Total Greenhouse Effect.” To see how the attributions to individual green house gases can be determined. To say that at 400ppm that only 3% of radiative forcing from GHG at the surface can be attributed to CO2 is just nowhere near correct. Show me how you get to this figure.

@@BurnettMary Thanks for your reply. I will look it up, and do another calculation even if all the calculations I have done this far doesn't match up with your figures. I have for sure missed something if your figures are correct. I claim, however, that the overlap is correct (partially sharing of the same spectrum). Ofcourse the amount of overlap is different at the poles versus the tropics. CO2 and water vapor share a significant portion of the same spectrum between 13 and 17 um. That's a fact. Less around 13um, and more around 17um. To find my figures, I calculated the effective area from wavelength in the X axis, and absorption ratio in the Y axis. I then used the CO2 graph as a layer above the H2O graph, and then calculated the area where CO2 absobs, but not H2O. What I found was that H2O and CO2 shares 70% (approx) of the same absorption spectrum between 13 um and 17 um, while CO2 is dominant in the upper layer around 13-15 um or so. Using the average temperature, and calculating the forcing, I got approx 3%, not 10 (actually I got 12% effect for CO2 if all other GHGs are removed). I'll look at it once more.

"I'm too dumb to understand a scientist, therefore he must be wrong"

Basically means you're too stupid to understand it.

What’s missing here is any empirical evidence of increasing global warming. It appears that global temperature actually leveled off around twenty years ago. So why push the panic button?

@@stevenyourke7901 It didn't level off twenty years ago.

The climate is slightly heating up but not due to CO2. NOBODY has written a paper that proves the link between climate and CO2. The reason for the present warm period is that the solar cycles and periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit have combined as they do about every 1030 years to give us a warm period. The previous ones- Medieval, Roman, and Minoan were warmer than now. This is well known by scientists on both sides of the argument. The “Climate Emergency” is political and a wicked scam.

I'm part of the Alma Mater... I was really disappointed with the naïveté and incompleteness of his model. Doubling CO2 doesn't double the amount of energy absorbed for example (www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/).

His students seem to be perpetually stuck in school judging by their age. 🤣

Why? Because you disagree with him?

He definitely screwed up there. You'd think he would have caught that as most technical people readily recognize such errors, especially when written. They sometimes misspeak, but to have this error in a slide he uses for teaching is pretty bad. It is the kind of error an arts student or a news reporter makes.

Using an AVERAGE concentration globally of 0.4% that works out to 4,000 ppm. So he was only off by a factor of 1,000. :)

5% is only near to ground. If you go higher in atmosphere, it becomes colder 6.5°C each km and becomes very dry soon because water condenses and freezes Consider, it is about water vapor here, not about condensed water (clouds). However I think also 4.5ppm might be a typo, I am not sure.

the climate is a complex non linear dynamical system which we don't even know all the parameters of, saying it's simple physics is just nonsense.

@@axeman2638 I guess you did not make it to thermodynamics.

@@kimlibera663 i stopped watching after he said it was simple physics, just read the comments, which display a much greater knowledge of the subject than the speaker.

The physics are very SIMPLE when it comes to the fucking ENERGY EXCHANGE. Why don't you submit YOUR theory as to what's REALLY happening for publication? (doesn't follow known thermo laws like fucking 1st and 2nd and the fucking 3rd, but who cares? you must be up for the fucking Nobel Prize!)

Excellent point! I had thoughts in exactly the same direction. What happens if you measure the rate of temperature drop after sunset for different humidities? We know that in deserts with a relative humidity between 20-30%, the air cools rapidly while in coastal regions the drop rate is smaller. If you make a plot of this drop rate versus humidity, you can extrapolate the curve to zero humidity and that shows you the pure CO2 effect. Science calls this diurnal temperatur change. If you did this over ten years at the same locations, you could prove that increase of CO2 has little or no effect.

@@maxtabmann6701 NASA did a study on what it would take to transform Mars to be a more Earth like planet. To raise Mars temperature by 10 C would require the release of all the CO2 trapped in the poles and ground, which would raise Mars atmospheric pressure to about 20% that of Earth. Both Earth and Mars are greenhouse planets. One major difference being that CO2 is the primary GHG on Mars and H2O is the primary GHG on Earth. Currently, Mars has about 15 CO2 molecules in it's atmosphere for every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere of Earth. Mars gets about 60% of the solar radiance that Earth gets. However, Mars has an average temp of about -81 F which sits directly on top of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band unlike Earth which does not. This more than offsets the lesser amount of solar radiance. If my math is correct that amounts to about a 3000% increase in the concentration of CO2 in Mars atmosphere just for an extra 10 C of warming. And here on Earth alarmists are predicting doom for a measly few percent increase of CO2. Seems to me that Earth's atmospheric water vapor is even more dominant than we give it credit for and CO2 not so much. CO2 forcing is a non factor according to Russian models.

@@europaeuropa3673 Thanks for these hints. I never considered this approach of warming Mars serious because the Mars atmosphere is already 97% CO2. Even considering the low pressure, the Mars CO2 concentration is still 27 times higher than that on earth Thats what my calciuation showed. (Your calculation was 15 times ?). Mars geology shows that it was much warmer in the past and this coincides with the fact that Mars had rivers of water then, which it all lost into space. This, for me is proof enough that water is the relevant greenhouse gas - not CO2. If one wants to terraform Mars, one has to increase pressure by adding nitrogen and increase temperature by adding water. CO2 plays no significant role. A final but important question: Do you have newer data about the question how much is Mars temperature above blackbody temperature? According to my data, the 97% CO2 warms Mars only by 1 degree.

@@maxtabmann6701 I assumed the majority of the atmosphere for Earth extends out to 6.8 miles above the surface and 6.71 miles above the surface of Mars. This is the basic assumption made for my calculation of 15 CO2 molecules in Mars atmosphere for every CO2 molecule in Earth's atmosphere. I don't know the answer to your question. I have read the greenhouse effect from CO2 on Mars provides about 5 C or 9 F of warming to the planet. Your data is well within an order of magnitude. If you take the average of both (1 C + 5 C)/ 2 = 3 C of warming from CO2 or about 5 F above blackbody temp. I think it proves that CO2 is an irrelevant GHG and of no concern for warming of the Earth.

Glad to see the critical thinking here done by simple observation. Earth Science is not all math. A lot of is just be so cognizant of changes over the hours. This is the daily cycle on earth & you are correct that co2 had nothing to do with it.

Criticism of the 200 years (overripe) "greenhouse gas theory" going back to Fourier in 1824 (He was more circumspect and closer to reality than the IPCC) "1. There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without simultaneously creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum, and in the open atmosphere of our planet, there is nowhere for energy to hide other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented, and even if it were, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer. 2. Quite the opposite. The earth would be warmer if there were to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course). Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g., Sahara, Namib, and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures. The absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally compared to an atmosphere with greater water vapor and at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort of “greenhouse effect” in reverse. 3. That statement only holds true in high-humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space - void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not give you a fever, and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer. 4. If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to exist. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate-related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached. 5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again - quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 7. Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling. 8. An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed). 9. A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality - 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 - but in the much-heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget, they DO combine. Let's look at the numbers, then. According to the accepted Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (see below), the earth's surface averages 168 W/m2 for solar absorption. K-T has the surface lose much of that energy by convection and evapotranspiration, though, so that 324 W/m2 of back-radiated power brings the surface up to 390 W/m2, corresponding to 15°. But in this case we'll reduce convective and evapotranspirative heat loss to zero, which leaves us with the original 168 W/m2. Now, within these parameters, how much extra back-radiation is required to bring the surface up to 77°? SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR W/m2, for a total of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY TWO W/m2, which corresponds to 77°. (Bonus question: If the greenhouse effect generates enough radiative power to raise the earth's temperature to 77°, but most of this heat is dissipated, then why is there no sign of this excess energy being blasted away from the earth? Satellites only see the earth emitting 240 W/m2.) The average solar irradiance for a blackbody earth - one that absorbs every photon the sun can provide - is 342 W/m2, corresponding to an average temperature of 5.5°. Yet here, illustrious academia estimates conjure 852 W/m2 out of nothing 10. “Radiative equilibrium” is an arbitrary construct to BEGIN with. You just subtract a planet's reflectance from the available irradiance and divide by 4. That's IT. There ARE no other steps. Since Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight, then, 1368 W/m2 × 0.7 = 957.6 W/m2. Dividing by 4 gives you 239.4 W/m2, so that becomes earth's equilibrium figure and this corresponds to a temperature of 255Kelvin. Now, is the earth's average SURFACE temperature 255K? No, it's warmer. So you say that “somewhere up there” is where earth's radiative equilibrium is to be found, somewhere in the troposphere. It's all so silly. But once you convince yourself that the surface does NOT principally determine the earth's temperature, you can convince yourself that it IS determined by the atmosphere and that “greenhouse gases” RAISE the “equilibrium point” higher and higher. And as you see, you can even go as far as asserting that the surface absorbs no sunlight." Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NS55lXf4LZk.htmlsi=OIcSya5wSSgOKdjt

thanks for the weather report

And that's what they got for an average warming over 100 yrs. 1.6 not 4 or 8.

But see co2 is not driving the warmth. Co2 follows warmth, not vice versa. Now we do have entropy-stand by cars congested in a line of traffic in NYC. The Suns is still the main driver & in fact the sun's coniptions will drive the jet stream to shift direction.

@-GinPi Gamma I do absolutely understand the principle of angular momentum. In fact I'm designing a basic experiment to illustrate this for an astronomy enrichment class that I will teach next year for Adult Ed.

The hypothesis fails. The Earth's surface cannot radiate IR bc the atmosphere is sitting on it. The Earth surface transfers heat to the atmosphere via conduction then up to space via convection. So, there is NO radiation from thw Earth's surface for atmospheric CO2 to absorb. So no CO2 role in the Greenhouse Effect.

try intercoursing yourself, what's your point? manmade climate change real or scam? just say your say if you have ANY brains at all please.

Yep!

and the questioner called him on it. Response: let's talk offline. so much for Q&A.

He keeps creating energy out of nowhere.

You got it! A heat loop.

@@raphielohnef4678 This is not shown. The sun emits 280 into the atmosphere. Totally absorbed? Then the atmosphere radiates 280 up and down. This is what is shown at 18:52. The sun only delivers 280 here. Thus the atmosphere must produce energy by its own, which is not possible.The sun energy would be split into two parts by the atmosphere. Here half of it is radiated back, the other half is radiated towards the earth. This is explains why total overcasts are cooler than a sunny day.

He explains it bad, it took me also a while to understand. So you have an equilibrium in the first slide: The temperature at the Earth is fixed at 30° (we dont know that yet). And we know that 240W are coming in from the sun. As long as the Isolation stays the same the temperature stays the same so the radiated energy HAS to be the same as the incoming energy right? Now we know why 240 are coming in and 240 MUST come out. We also know that the layer dissipates the same amount of energy in both directions so it has to dissipate also 240 down. so the earth gets 240W + 240W, and emits 480W. This energy is not in excess, it is saved as thermal energy in the atmosphere and on the surface, so it defines the surface temperature. If you add an layer you bring the system out of balance (the 240 going out are now not fixed anymore): the Earth still receives 240 of the sun and since its still at 30° out of the old balance it still emits the additional 240W = 480W. Now comes the catch. 480 (solar 240 + old 240) go up, hit the first layer and the energy gets split: half has to go up while the other half goes down. (240 down again 240 up) We still have the old balance right? 240 solar + 240 reflected from the first layer? yes but now comes the second layer into play: The 240 up get split again at the second layer. so here 120 go down but also only 120 go up(!). This means 240 come in as solar while only 120 leave the second layer! in this state there the system is out of balance and has to rebalance, the hotter the surface is, the more heat it looses. Now solar energy cant leave the earth completely again so it accumulates on the surface and in the atmosphere and raises its temperatures. As the temperatures increase the energy output also slowly increase until the exact moment the balance is restored: 240 in, 240 out. but now the Temperatures are different: The output of 240 is fixed again so it also has to reflect 240 inwards. But there is the second layer. since the first layer emits a total of 480 the second layer has to emit 480 upwards! Now if it emits it upwards it also emits it downwards adding 480 to the 240 of the sun and BOOM, there you have your 720W. Remember, in an equilibrium the "exess energy" is only saves in the Atmosphere and on the surface!

I think he's distorted things by conflating a RATE of energy movement with a VOLUME of energy movement. Does that make sense? it took me a while to see it. I can't say if this if this is an honest error or not as I can't read minds. :)

If 240 W/m² is coming in from sun, then 240 W/m² must go out in space. These 240m² energy flow which go down will circulate in the atmosphere, and is not consumed, it is temporarily circulating in atmosphere so this is not additional energy. Think about this absorbing layer like a water dam, it increases pressure and height of water, but does not increase energy, it captures and accumulates energy, but not forever.

I would have a reply, but your post is so old that it is wrong and out of date.

@@keithdow8327 I didn't know my post was for sale and now you tell me it's sold out? Darn!

@@cdmarshall7448 "Science is never settled only in the political arena of influence and coercion." Sorry kiddo, the standard model hasn't changed in 50 years. You don't know what you are talking about. I am glad you are studying climate change. Why did it take you over a month? That's right, you have no technical knowledge. You are just a B.S. artist.

So would adding CO2 to the atmosphere heat up the earth or cool it?

@@adrianwoodlock8433 Overall cooling it. Anything that expedites CAPE is a cooling process. Can it heat parts of the atmosphere? Sure it can (maybe just under the tropopause) but it is increasing the emission layer as well which is cooling. Neither of that equates to increased surface temperatures. CO2 does not, cannot and will not increase the surface T more from "backscattering". This is just nonsense. Rules are rules (Th^4-Tc^4).

@@raphielohnef4678 You can google it yourself. Here's one of an almost infinite sources: www.cebrightfutures.org/learn/incident-angle-sunlight

@@raphielohnef4678 Well, water and ice are reflective surfaces at acute angles. Do you own research - you seem to be better at it.

@@dontvoteforanybody3715 Depends on the acuteness of the angle.

@@fredneecher1746 This is what I said. At the poles, the angle is necessarily so acute that light bounces off water as readily as snow or ice.

​@@dontvoteforanybody3715is that angular reflection accounted for in the albido?

Could that make a negligible difference in relation to the 4000 mile radius? There are so many other factors that cause greater variation. Math is a pain but reality is a bitch.

Modern academia

he never explains that the 15lbs/sq. in. of atmosphere sitting on the Earth prevents radiation from occurring from the surface bc conduction and convection move the energy to the top of the atmosphere, bypassing 99% of CO2) where the energy can then be radiated to space. This whole model is a joke.

Depends on the type of cloud. E.g. cirrus will let a lot of radiation thru whereas nimbus will block a lot of incoming from the sun but also keep what's below it inside.

@@kimlibera663 exactly, I mostly hear the cloud argument but those also trap heat in the night.

​@@jamadirtrue, but the net effect is negative.

Al Erog No, there absolutely isn’t any violation of the second law of thermodynamics. I’m guessing that you are probably repeating some misinformation you have read on a blog site. For example, the rate of radiative transfer toward the blue layer from the pink layer is greater that the rate of radiative transfer toward the pink layer from the blue layer. The NET transfer of radiative energy is therefore going from the warmer layer to the cooler layer which is exactly what the second law of thermodynamics requires.

@@BurnettMary What is a blog? Heat does not transfer from something cold to something hot.

Al Erog once again, completely wrong. Explain to me why, if you had two blackbody radiators at different temperatures, radiation emitted from the cooler blackbody radiator can’t be absorbed by the warmer one? There is no reason. This is one way that thermal energy can pass from a cooler body to a warmer body. Where did you get your misinformation from?

Say, a cold body radiates a photon and a hot body happens to be in its way. What happens to this single photon? Obviously, overall the hot body heat the cold one. But the specific photon I am talking about: What happens to it? Is it reflected, scattered, does it do some crazy quantum physics stuff and disappear? What is that effect called and who found it?

@@BurnettMary I have heard about a funny "skeptical" hypothesis that it is turned into kinetic energy. :D [If I got it right, don't expect me to check bullshit claims like that ;)] I have not found the answer to the question how the hot body "knows" that the photon comes from a warmer body since the same wavelength photon can come from very different temperatures. I have not gotten an answer as to what happens to the "cold" photon hitting the hot body, either. If you can """"learn"""" more about these questions, I'd be enthusiastic to hear about it! :D

And what about the 'dark' side, why do you never hear about nighttime radiation?

​@@robertcoutts926 Right - I mentioned it: "and night side still radiating out to space".

they NEVER mention the percentage of CO2 which would make all this castle of sand fall. They speak about tons of particle. It's as if you were boiling tea and for impressing people on how much water you are wasting just for a tea you mentioned the number of water molecules. It's so pathetic what they are doing and so criminal for the implications.

The Earth emits 720 watts according to his model. Can you do basic math? Also one Watt is defined as one Joule/second. It can be consumed or expelled.

​@keithdow8327 You believe the WARMER Earth's surface can absorb back from a COLDER surface? You're embarrassing yourself. Brush up on you basic laws of thermal dynamics. We can all add.

also the wavelength that co2 could absorb is also within the wavelength water vapor absorbs, so like yeah i call bull shit as well.

would adding more CO2 facilitate more cooling if all the energy is already absorbed? Don't the extra molecules bounce the energy up more quickly b4 being released to space? I'm probably out of my league here. :)

Novel concept Not sure but worth taking to ground Thanks

Sounds like YOUR theory is the one that doesn't obey know thermodynamics and energy conservation laws. (Why not just name the three? just to prove you know what the fuck you're talking about? no googling now! be honest!) So, when are you submitting YOUR theory as to what's REALLY happening for publication? (you must be up for the fucking Nobel Prize!)

How about the 2. Law of thermodynamics?

Go tell the amazon rainforest about carbon fixation... The only proper way to store CO2 long term is peat, which is also being mined on a big scale.

@@jamadir The rainforests are themselves massive storers of carbon and of heat transformed into material growth.

try intercoursing yourself, what's your point? manmade climate change real or scam? just say your say if you have ANY brains at all please.

All of THAT is just the fucking EXCHANGE processes of the PLANET. NOT the physics of the fucking ENERGY EXCHANGE. Why don't you submit YOUR theory as to what's REALLY happening for publication? (You might be up for the fucking Nobel Prize!)

It's agreed, This use of physics is flawed. The Earth is somewhat protected by the Magnetosphere. I wonder if our learned scholars New that over the last 190 years the Magnetosphere has declined by 9% weakened by 8% since 1970.

You make an interesting point about the audience. I am old, white, male, degenerate, stupid ... (Whoops! over compensation! SBT.) When I went to school they taught science as if it mattered. In Primary school we did experiments on photosynthesis, and cut up frogs. There has been an enormous change in education since then. Now there is a presumption that 10 year old kids are still babies who can't cope with reality and need protection from it. I meet young people in their teens who do not know what the periodic table is. And some that do. Is it possible that science means different things to different people? Why wouldn't that be true? I have a concept of science, that is both trusting and skeptical, that holds scientific ideas to a higher standard of proof, that honors hard work and research, and elevates those that do it. I learned all that at school. At least one generation has missed out on that. I can understand if they don't want to listen to a scientist. Why would they?

Brian Arps I agree - science is not (taught) the same as it was even in MY generation. I am not graced with a distinguished crown of white just yet, but it’s probably soon. And that wasn’t meant to be disparaging in any way - only that the homogenous makeup of that audience was astounding and not at all what I would have expected! And your point about kids not learning enough is spot on. If they don’t learn it in the school, then they simply believe anything that an “expert” tells them because they have no tools with which to critique and scrutinize the information they are being spoon-fed! They simply, blindly, trust. Whereas MY belief is trust BUT VERIFY! Even if it only means a reality check on the spot or running a few simple estimates calculations in your head - or just logically following from the hypothesis to the conclusion and see if it even makes sense! This prof makes lots of assertions with very little (if any) credible evidence. “Here’s a make-believe ‘model’ that kinda sorta represents the system of you make a TON of assumption and simply ignore the unknowns...” wow...

Remember he said it was simple ... now you're going to screw everything up by complicating it.

I'm literally losing hope in humanity reading your comment, the only person who was not agreeing was not understanding his mathematics as I explained them better in another comment here. Why why why do you think because you don't know what you're talking about your view is more correct than the view of experts? All I hear is "they just mindlessly listen to each other and repeat it" just try to publish a complete wrong rubbish scientific paper and dozens of scientists from that field will try to disprove you based on data and known mechanisms. While "climate criticism" mostly comes from people that have already been disproved and ignore data that does not support their case. So either they're wrong, or the overwhelming majority of scientists who use the scientific method to at least take a look at the data just happen to be the dumb 90% of all scientists.

If you look at 5:05 you will see a person of colour, the colour being very dark brown. Is if that mattered.

@adrianwoodlock8433 == lazy idiot

It requires knowledge of the physics which you don't have and never will. It requires education, work ethic & functioning brain which you don't have and never will.

The "study" of clouds my be way up in grad school but the 'understanding' of clouds is way up beyond all human comprehension. Studying is an activity, not an achievement. Science is driven by achievement, not study.

@miked5106 == ignorant half-witted Troll all over the Googleytubes

The guy in the green shirt did not know what was happening.

@@keithdow8327 No no, the guy in the green shirt is absolutely right. For this the earth would have to radiate 2x480W = 960W, and this would mean an absurdly high earth temperature, which proves the speaker does not know about climate science and he does not know about physics

@@maxtabmann6701 Hardly. This is elementary school mathematics. The Earth takes in 240 plus 480 and it radiates 720. Yawn. You might notice 240 plus 480 equals 720.

@@keithdow8327 If a layer emitts 480 upward and 480 downward, it must emit 2x480 = 960W. You better should think instead of reading from the slide.

@@maxtabmann6701 Sorry dude, you better learn some science. It emits 480 W/m*m. There are two surfaces here. The statement is, it emits 480 w/m*m from the surface on top, and 480 w/m*m from the surface on the bottom. "You better should think" You better should learn english. I have a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of California. Did you graduate high school?

true! so what?

Laughs in bolsonaro

Less every day/week/month/year. We cut down the forests remember? And Warming oceans can absorb less co2 - melting permafrost releases ch4 which in our atmosphere adds to the carbon content.

@@raphielohnef4678 very interesting

@-GinΠΓ Τάο i keep pointing this out to people, they just don't listen because they've heard the suggestion too many times, brainwashed

Mars is already 95% CO2. :) And air pressure is dramatically lower vs Earth.

According to this guy, we can add unlimited # of layers, and we'll be energy independent!!!!! LOL! Of course, with his model, we'll be HOTTER than the SUN!!!! Come on man!!!!

@RandallMeals lol what a noob

The whole presentation is an unscientific con trick

He is not adding two temperatures, he is adding power (W) over area (/m2) - power means amount of energy over time. It's like doubling amount of light getting to a solar panel - amount of electrical power it will produce will increase (not a perfect analogy). Say, your body temperature is 36C, and you insulate yourself (get into multiple sleeping bags, one over other) - your body temperature will increase because your body is constantly converting chemically stored energy (fats, sugars) into other forms of energy (with part of that energy in form of heat). If you use enough sleeping bags and bags are well enough insulating - you might die from overheating.

@@sozforex You should know that 240 w/m2 will convert to 255 Kelvin 255 & 255 still only gives you 255 k of heat.

@@sozforex It's disengenuous and unrealistic and not how the atmosphere works. What are the outgoing black body radiation frequencies and what are the absorbtion frequencies of co2? Obviously co2 plays a minor role and no wher enear his 100% assumption at that point in the oresentation.

they are both stupid and lying to you.

this is one of the killer questions too rarely asked. how can the influence of man's CO2 on climate, if any, be distinguished from natural variation? do we have a control planet?

because the average temperatures measure year by year are going UP. what is so difficult to understand? you are ignorant. what's your point? manmade climate change real or scam? just say your say if you have ANY brains at all please.

​@@axeman2638 because the average temperatures as measured year by year are going UP. what is so difficult to understand? we MEASURE (by proxy) for the past million fucking years. and the fucking co2 as well. what's your point? manmade climate change real or scam? just say your say if you have ANY brains at all please.

@@mrunning10 but they aren't, they have been dropping since 1998, even with all the data "adjustment" and urban heat island effects.

@@mrunning10 there has been a very small temperature increase but nothing compared to historical norms. In the last 10,000 years the earth has been warmer for 6100 of those years. The university of Alabama satellite data is the most reliable. It correlates with the radiosonde actual balloon thermometer data and it proves all the climate models to be wildly wrong. You need to do a little research before you parrot the politicians at the UN IPCC.

@@raphielohnef4678 I can definitely admit there's a lot about carbon cycle that I do NOT know especially in regards to deep carbon cycle just as most people, even the renowned and brilliant climate scientists. However, what I do know is implicating minuscule rise in carbon dioxide to apocalyptic like climate crisis is absolutely ridiculous because :- 1. The current carbon dioxide levels are somewhat the lowest it's been since the Cambrian period as it's gradually dropping, at 150ppm life on planet earth will cease to exist. This happens because most of the carbon is locked in dead life forms and crustacean fossils buried deep within the earth's crust. 2. Conversely the rise in carbon dioxide actually increases the vitality and richness of life forms on earth just as it was the case when complex multicellular Life first evolved on this planet. It will definitely make the planet greener. 3. The point of highlighting each human expiration has 40,000ppm CO2 saturation is to demonstrate how miniscule 410ppm atmospheric CO2 is and not to imply humans aren't part of the fundamental carbon cycle. Merely to show the absolute stupidity. 4. Global temperature rises before actual noticeable increase in atmospheric CO2 levels due to difference in CO2 saturation tendency in the oceans. Warmer oceans release more dissolved CO2 from the oceans. 5. The numerous factors that determine variability in global temperature and two of the main ones are cloud formation and H2O vapour which is the primary greenhouse gas that contributes to 85% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. Nevertheless, there are still many other factors which are crucially important in determining geoweather patterns before implicating minuscule rise in CO2 as the major cause of global warming if there's actually such a devastating climate phenomenon in the first place especially involving the amounts involved in causing AGW. We're talking about extremely negligible levels. So to make rising CO2, the gas of life somehow to be a pollutant causing apocalyptic climate crisis is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.....COMPLETE UNSCIENTIFIC GARBAGE. I guess it's not uncommon today to conceal scientific truths in deception and lies driven by fictional fear instead of examining the actual facts for what they really are....which are irrefutable FACTS!

But the alarmists keep telling the public that we send a gazillion gigatons so do they know this?

I think it's 70% N2, so no

It depends on the wavelength. The 15um wavelength is absorb fully alerady in less that 1 meter, but the side bands, that occur due to the different quantun states, such as rotational and viberational quantum states, and the molecules collisions with other molecules, broadens the absorption band quite a bit, but the effect of these side bands are weak compared to the central wavelength at 15um - because the energy distribution must be taken from that central wavelength at 15um, which will weaken the re-emitting of 15um. The so called R and P branch is absorbed 85-90% at approx 150 to 200 meters. Also have in mind that the mean free path of CO2 molecules in a three dimensional model is reduced to 83% for each doubling (in a one dimensional model the mfp is 50%, and 70.1% in a 2 dimensional model). The atmosphere is 3 dimensional, so each doubling is increasing collision ratio between each separate CO2 molecule by only 17%. That means that the R and P branch doesn't widen much for each doubling, and can't cause significant additional warming.

Probably more than 10m but certainly well below 6 miles. Most of the molecules are indeed N2 followed by O2. Everyone has the idea that there is a Co2 molecule every foot, no they are widely disperse & quicly taken up by vegetation.

it's insignificant in size and is a constant so doest effect the equations materially.

man is heating the planet MORE than would occur by any know natural process because of the co2 we bring UP from under the fucking ground. How's that?

I can't follow you completely, so perhaps my response is not adequate. Yes, a hotter planet emits more heat, so a one-time heating up does not do anything in the long term. For it to stay hot, the heating has to go on and on. So only the rate of burning matters (unit: watts per square meter) You claim that mainstream science denies (or whatever) that direct heating from burning stuff could escape to space. Let's say they do deny it but you don't. How much cooler do you expect the planet to become?

Note: all else being equal. Work with me here. One piece of the puzzle at a time. :D

@@patrickb.4749 I don't expect that burning fossil fuels will make the world cooler. I expect that it will make it warmer. But the increased warmth must (I think) lead to increased amounts of heat escaping the earth. I am relying on common sense here. The warmth from the burning of fossil fuels must abate over time, and fairly quickly. I point out that Prof Ruhl appears to disagree, but I may have misunderstood his argument. This still leaves the greenhouse effect without which the world would be colder than I would find comfortable. Whether increased CO2 is the cause of this warming, or the consequence of it, I still can't work out. Perhaps both. A warmer ocean may emit CO2, and increased CO2, from all sources, may add to the green-house effect. Both seem possible. At face value this might result in a runaway reaction, but I am told that the CO2 greenhouse effect is negatively logarithmic. Increasing CO2 has less and less effect. Good thing too. My disagreement with Prof Ruhl, is that he appears to distinguish between between natural and man-made heating effects and the way that natural processes deal with them. I can't see how natural processes could do that.

@@patrickb.4749 Yes I think that heating has to be continuous to maintain its effect. Cos heat escapes at every opportunity. Prof Ruhl appears to argue that (46 minutes) that heating from fossil fuels is cumulative. That if we don't stop using fossil fuels the oceans will boil away. This could be a bit of hyperbole, designed for effect, but I am not one bit convinced that this is a possibility.

@@brianarps8756 You cannot work out whether humans are the cause of the increase? How can nature be the cause of the CO2 increase if the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is smaller than human emissions? some basic thing first: nature net emissions = nature emissions - nature absorbtion atmosphere change = human emissions - nature net emissions If we put in the prof's numbers: 120ppm = 160ppm - nature net emissions nature net emissions = -40 (25% absorbed: 40/160) Find numbers that paint a significantly different picture. Afaik, nature net emissions = negative 50% * human emissions (the prof underestimated it). I guess I will work out from your answer whether you are a real skeptic and answer to the rest of your messages, accordingly.

there is no rise in temperature, all claimed warming is due to urban heat island effects and data "adjustment"

@miked5106 == ignorant half-witted Troll all over the Googleytubes

You are correct regarding the 240 up and down. Shocking from a physics prof. He just created 240W down from that upper layer out of nothing! Also, realize that the outgoing radiation does not come FROM the rad-absorbing layer - it is energy from below that passes THROUGH it. I repeat - a shocking level of nonsense.

240w up AND down? he claims bc it radiates in "all" direction. Well let's add directions 'left' and 'right'. Wow! I just created another 489 w of energy (240+240). I'm going to patent this. Since there are infinite directions I've created infinite energy!

Criticism of the 200 years (overripe) "greenhouse gas theory" going back to Fourier in 1824 (He was more circumspect and closer to reality than the IPCC) "1. There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without simultaneously creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum, and in the open atmosphere of our planet, there is nowhere for energy to hide other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented, and even if it were, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer. 2. Quite the opposite. The earth would be warmer if there were to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course). Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g., Sahara, Namib, and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures. The absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally compared to an atmosphere with greater water vapor and at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort of “greenhouse effect” in reverse. 3. That statement only holds true in high-humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space - void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not give you a fever, and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer. 4. If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to exist. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate-related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached. 5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again - quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 7. Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling. 8. An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed). 9. A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality - 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 - but in the much-heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget, they DO combine. Let's look at the numbers, then. According to the accepted Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (see below), the earth's surface averages 168 W/m2 for solar absorption. K-T has the surface lose much of that energy by convection and evapotranspiration, though, so that 324 W/m2 of back-radiated power brings the surface up to 390 W/m2, corresponding to 15°. But in this case we'll reduce convective and evapotranspirative heat loss to zero, which leaves us with the original 168 W/m2. Now, within these parameters, how much extra back-radiation is required to bring the surface up to 77°? SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR W/m2, for a total of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY TWO W/m2, which corresponds to 77°. (Bonus question: If the greenhouse effect generates enough radiative power to raise the earth's temperature to 77°, but most of this heat is dissipated, then why is there no sign of this excess energy being blasted away from the earth? Satellites only see the earth emitting 240 W/m2.) The average solar irradiance for a blackbody earth - one that absorbs every photon the sun can provide - is 342 W/m2, corresponding to an average temperature of 5.5°. Yet here, illustrious academia estimates conjure 852 W/m2 out of nothing 10. “Radiative equilibrium” is an arbitrary construct to BEGIN with. You just subtract a planet's reflectance from the available irradiance and divide by 4. That's IT. There ARE no other steps. Since Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight, then, 1368 W/m2 × 0.7 = 957.6 W/m2. Dividing by 4 gives you 239.4 W/m2, so that becomes earth's equilibrium figure and this corresponds to a temperature of 255Kelvin. Now, is the earth's average SURFACE temperature 255K? No, it's warmer. So you say that “somewhere up there” is where earth's radiative equilibrium is to be found, somewhere in the troposphere. It's all so silly. But once you convince yourself that the surface does NOT principally determine the earth's temperature, you can convince yourself that it IS determined by the atmosphere and that “greenhouse gases” RAISE the “equilibrium point” higher and higher. And as you see, you can even go as far as asserting that the surface absorbs no sunlight." Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NS55lXf4LZk.htmlsi=OIcSya5wSSgOKdjt

You wrote "The USA... generates about 30% of the world's waste and population." This is complete BS. Look at the sources of garbage in the oceans and the USA is not even in the first dozen countries.

Are u saying there is no greenhouse effect? or no increased greenhouse effect above certain levels of CO2 and water vapor?

lol, it's hard enough just doing the thermodynamics, and you want to add electrodynamics as well?

what about it?

@-GinPi Gamma... baloney gobbledygook but nice try.

it's more like 45,000 not 4500, correct?

@@miked5106 water vapour varies according to regional climate. I do not remember where I got that number as an average, but yes it is generally tens of thousands ppm, certainly 4.5ppm is ludicrous.

@miked5106 == ignorant half-witted Troll all over the Googleytubes

Weather is a very short term variation on a long term statistic. It makes less sense than comparing winter and summer at a fixed location. What is the climate of Boston in summer versus the climate of Boston in winter? Climate variation would change the summers and winters.

professor of TV and Media? or physics? were you stoned at the time?

@bruno bond Just to give you an example of my professor's mindset, you were not allowed in his class without a bong!

​@@thejils1669 Excellent! Bong Away! (cuts down on the mental masturbatory absorption)

Oh Come on... That is such a damn strawman Argument. If your IR active gases exist (which they do, we are Talking about Co2 as climate gas) than the Stefan Bolzman does not work, Because Your Emission is Depends extrem on the wavelangs ! So your comming from a strawman and Moving to an circle Argument. You will Use an approach of Stefan boltzmann to Show climate Chance Which Would Show, That You Cant use Stefan boltzmann;). Or Your Are Saying earth is this grey body, than it Emission is not Depending on the wavelangs and there You have a big problem with your climate active Gases, because they are working just an a smal Area of wavelangs. So you cant have boath man ;)...

Now your Switching the burden of proof ;)... nice try. I am not convinced we can calculate it ... when i Was in the University i lerned it is not possible. And all guys now Saying we can, i am missing the New knowledge!

Ok... than please Except my appology for misunderstanding your quote;)... i do Not have an Real idea. I am thinking it is the right call to Do such models and work With them... but without any falsifiable prediction everything is just an first step. As far as i know There is no way to calculate it right Now... but i trink the scientist will find a way... but right now it is just an hypothesis... do Not missunderstand me... it Themes to be a climate Change right Now (hard to Argue With that) ... we can be Almost Sure that co2 has a Part in it... but we Cant calculate right now if it is 0.001 or 95 percent... and i am not intelligent enough to find the solution... and evan if i Would be... after my Physics time in University i Start working in an Other Subject... Regards Alex

The greenhouse effect is not fake news. Your framing of the issue is child like. 410 ppm carbon dioxide is causing warming. This is observed and predicated on well understood physical laws.

​@@briansmith7458 True but the greenhouse effect is geometric or even linear. it's a logrithmic function. So you'll get increasing temperatures at a rapidly declining rate from CO2. And most of us realize water vapor is the dominant ghg, CO2 is minor.

@@miked5106 The effect of increasing co2 is to raise the altitude at which radiation escapes the atmosphere. This corresponds to a cooler radiative temperature which Ihen is balanced by a warmer troposphere. Every additional molecule of co2 adds to this effect. This fact explains why the top of the atmosphere of Venus is -90 °C and down below is a furnace.

@@miked5106 Also, H20 isn't the dominant greenhouse gas.

Roads-generally black when freshly tarred & then lightening over time. Still as a blackbody it will absorb light & yes it's hot. Shaded road inhibits the direct radiation which is one manner in which heat molecules spread.

KANDIPPA

try intercoursing yourself, what's your point? manmade climate change real or scam? just say your say if you have ANY brains at all please.