Great video. It is a sad state of affairs when mathematical non-science like Murphey's paper is published and the reasonable counter arguments are suppressed. Such naiveite could be forgiven in a 7th Grader but this should have been rejected by the first reviewer. Hossenfelder's channel has dissolved into a delusional fantasy of science fiction and confused ideas.
In his book Factfulness Hans Rosling also predicted that Earth's population would level out at around 11 billion, so that's a very fair assumption. I can't comment on your analysis, because I don't really understand it, but the alternative - to assume that everything gets worse exponentially, just doesn't make sense.
The assumption of exponential growth often leads "scientists" astray. The growth is always limited by some other process. For example, during the early COVID scare cases were growing exponentially. A careful plot of the early cases in my state showed the exponential growth was slowing down: betraying characteristics of your "logistical" model. You could see the peak was going to be around 20% of the population coming down with COVID. This indicated that about 80% of the population was naturally immune. More important than having a theory is to know where the theory does not apply: every theory has corresponding catastrophes.
Thank you very much Dr. Yong. I agree with the logistic model you proposed, but I didn't see it coming until you mentioned it. In addition, the analysis of population dynamics makes sense. This video is a research paper I suppose.
Earths albedo 0.3 is valid for visible light, but when earth radiates with thermal radiation, emissivity is NOT 0.7 but in the order of 0.95. Reflectivity and emissivity vary with wavelength - it is what we call colours in the visible spectrum. Infrared is almost black, nearly nothing is reflected and emission is near that of a blackbody radiator.
Thank you for comments. By invoking spectral emissivity, one cannot use the emissivity in the Stefan-Bollzmann law any more. It is noted that the albedo 0.3 is the planetary reflectivity, rather than a spectral variable, namely, alpha=integration of the product of spectral emissivity and the Planck function from 0 to infinity with respect to wavelenght or wavenumber. Hence it is independent of frequency. Similarly, the 0.7 emissivity is not a spectral variable. Instead, it merely indicates the planet as a whole, including the atmosphere, acts as a grey body when observing the earth in space. The value 0.95, or any valuce close to unity, can hardly be justified or measured because the Earth's surface is not in vacuum.
I will watch later but answer first - No, the earth will not boil, certainly not in the next billion+ years unless we collide with a big asteroid; never heard anything so lacking in scientific perspective, we have billions of years of earth history to guide us.
The nocturnal Radiation can simply cool down a bit more, if the temperature is higher than normal. Only chaotic/Turmoil in seasonal life & agri-trade that would be damaged or adjusted difficultly/ unavoidably.. Losses will occur.!!
It’s a legitimate question whether the IR created by ambient temperature is “extra” heat. It is, after all, the same kind of thermal energy created by a heat lamp. But by Thermodynamics 101, it must be more energy than already exists to increase temperature. And it must be more energy than exists in total mass to increase thermal equilibrium of total mass. Not in real life on the surface. It doesn’t boil oceans any more than ambient radiation boils a pot of water on your stove. Less thermal 12:03 energy than already is possessed it not a higher temperature. To make it even more confusing, this does happen miles and miles above the surface, at the micro density of TOA. This “extra” heat can not travel miles of convection and thermal expansion cooling to affect the surface. Murphys equation seems to ignore the fact that any “extra” heat added to an unconfined gas causes expansion and cooling at altitude. The atmosphere loses 4-9.8C per km of altitude. Until stratospheric density, when OLR can actually add heat to the much less conducive mass. Sad that they push the belief that humans are “more” powerful than the giant planet we live on. It’s not that accurate to real life scale, though.
I'm not a physicist, but I don't think I need to be. The answer is no! 'Waste heat' wouldn't touch the sides compared to the natural fluctuations of the sun, and the earth has survived for 4 billion years quite well.
Earth survive in what sense. As living Ecology; full of lives, barren desert or Iceland of Antarctica wouldn't be considered LIVELY.. Earth without human survival or gone with large numbers (if very few remaining).. that s good for natural balance but not good for the dead ones (of flood or Tsunami or opposite Draught.!!)
I don't understand what you are saying here, to be honest how the video answers anything or what it is saying, what is his point, energy in and energy out of the earth has to stay similar or heat increases. IF something traps that radiant heat, the total heat is what matters, that is being trapped? I feel this guy wouldn't survive without Sabine and feel he gets by with saying nothing overall that is constructive towards a goal. I mean 100 degrees, is just such a waste of everybody's time if 30 degrees minimum average is what is important.
@@antonyjh1234 My point is that there's no chance of trapping 100% of that heat. |Heat will be lost, even in a 'high' CO2 atmosphere. On that note 600ppm CO2 atmosphere is tops, even if we combusted all the known natural gas , shale, and oil reserves at once. Which is nowhere near what is needed to trap all heat given that the earth has survived 8000 ppm in its history and thrived. This guys video is exposing the flawed maths that Sabine's sources based their videos on. It should be obvious to anyone that energy consumption would not be an exponential curve right? That would be silly. Yet that is what the Sabine video is based on. My point is human energy consumption is around 19 terawatts, which is a mere fraction of the 90,000 or so TW that the sun produces, and less than the natural fluctuations of the sun. Therefore given the above, you have zero chance of any apocalyptic circumstances. Especially given the fact that the earth self rectifies any excesses in heat and CO2.
@@monstrositylabs Heat coming in from the sun and needing to leave again, who said 100% has anything to do with reality of total destruction and current warming? You understand energy is being trapped by the carbon and at 14 degrees as a global average 30 won't be so good if we reach that in a thousand years, or sooner?
@@antonyjh1234 "energy in and energy out of the earth has to stay similar or heat increases." but he earth is not a perfect heat absorber, it radiates heat out one way or another, even a black hole could not do that task perfectly.
You have to wonder how Nature could publish a paper with fundamental physics mistakes. Thinking we have limitless energy is utterly ridiculous as we are wasting billions of dollars on renewable energies that have very small impact on the total output. Second, the assumption that heat is trapped and cannot escape is even more ridiculous than the IPCC CO2 assumption. The paper is gross misinformation and quite revealing about Sabine's mission, proselytizing the Gaia religion.
The link between CO2’s ability to trap reradiated heat energy and, in sufficiently high atmospheric concentration, its being a cause of global warming, was demonstrated more than a century ago; and nothing since then has been found to contradict that finding. Given that solar activity has been low for the much of the period that global warming has been accelerating, that empirical data have shown that neither volcanic activity nor any other natural mechanism can account for the earth’s increasing temperature,and that climate graphs show temperatures being in perfect lock-step with increased CO2 levels, what specific reason do have for saying the science is ‘ridiculous”? It seems to me that with the weight of evidence supporting human-caused global warming it’s sensible to get behind attempts to find alternatives to carbon-releasing fuels. Or is that just my being ridiculous?
@@jcpmac1 You're not ridiculous, you're just incorrect. I suspect it's because you haven't read enough, and relied on sources like the BBC. Decreased cloud cover PERFECTLY explains the increase in warming in the UK. The two graphs are on the British Met Office site. The two are in lockstep. A similar study in Germany found exactly the same thing. I see no reason why (if studies were carried out) the same wouldn't be shown globally. That decrease in cloud cover is caused by a change in cosmic rays. A study of the past 24 years (of cosmic rays) recently found that it accounts for 100% of the observed warming. I’ll repeat that: it accounts for 100% of the observed warming. Meanwhile, CO2 and temperature are NOT in perfect lockstep. The warming (if you say it began in 1900) stalls for 40 years after WW2 against increased CO2 emissions. The modern warming period began in 1980. As for a proven global cause, there is mid ocean seismic activity - which fits better than CO2. Dr Arthur Viterito shows the correlation between mid ocean seismic activity and heat content is 0.89, and the coefficient of determination (the correlation squared) is .794. What that means is that the mid ocean seismic activity explains almost 80% of the variation in the ocean heat content. And it gets better. According to the regression model, the odds that this high of a correlation occurring by chance is 0.00000000000000104%. The oceans hold 1,000 times for heat than the wispy atmosphere, and directly drive climate. So, undersea volcanism on its own can explain the warming, but I would go for a combination of factors, not just one. It ain't CO2!
Earth will survive, in which sense. Earth ecology full of lives; both on-land & marine. Will you count barren desert or frozen Antarctica LIVELY (maybe Yes, for Emperor Penguins). Earth w/o human flourishing also the same good earth But not for the Dead ones, by means of flood, Tsunami or opposite Draught. Good for Wildlife but that earth will lack of men's eyes/view to admire them.(?)
