The Science Behind Global Warming: The Mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect

I can't thank you enough for this. Im an environmental science student and am trying to better my fundamental understanding of the entire process or concept of global warming -> thus climate change, in general and this is so ridiculously informative, you have no idea how valuable it is.

Two comments -

1) All objects above 0K emit heat energy. What matters is NET heat transfer. Heat energy can flow from cold object to a warm object, more flows in the other direction.
2) Melting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Melting ice sheets do contribute to sea level rise. Melting sea ice does change albedo, another feedback.

Otherwise a great video.

why is it assumed that the emission height increases by virtue of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere?

if we use hydrgen as fule we can feduce the amount of co2 that relese from focil fule

how deos co2 can store heat

now i understand wht we have to consider about the atomespher ehen finding earth temperathure

is all incoming energy to earth will reflect back will it not absorb any energy fravtion

is radiation is energy

did not understand the point of equal the stefan value to the amount of radiation emitted by earth

can you do a vidio about stefan boltzman low there is no any vidio to find it on you tube

why co2 is considerd as major green house gas

great explanation of the greenhouse effect, but it doesn't explain the urgency to reduce CO2 emissions. it doesn't address whether all radiation absorption has been done.

Thank you for this clear explanation. As a physicist, I have never understood why people with little or no understanding of the basic physics of the process should have such strong opinions about it, and why we, as a country, empower such ignorance and allow it to deter us from necessary action. This extreme arrogance based on ignorance may will impoverish our grandchildren.

How to calculate radiative forcing from water vapor?

Are the relative intensities of sun and Earth emission spectrums to scale to each other? I get a sun max of 411 at 0.495 microns (yellow) and a max of 25 at 10 microns for Earth.

If the Earth rebalances to 255K at a higher altitude, why would it be dimmer at a higher altitude than at a slightly lower altitudue? Is albedo a function of altitude?

Doesn’t the sun emit 1/4 of its energy to us in IR?

Is the emission height and mean mass of atmosphere height coincidentally the same?

Is albedo actually a function of latitude and surface color or is it a constant value everywhere?

Great video. How long will it take for the world to rebalance to 255K? Just a IN=ACCUM unsteady state diff eq for MCpdT/dt of the air? And water and land?

Some or many of the comments here are NOT scientific counterpoint but mere attempts to deubunk this presentation by making only remarks that are uniformed and combative. Why bother listening. Many here have evident closed views

Great video, thanks for clarifying the physics behind "global warming". I'll be sharing it with friends. thank you

There is a cooling of the atmosphere at higher elevations.

So what ? What are you gonna do about it ? Preacher No 1257 on greenhouse gases and that all the global warming must be our fault ! WHAT ARE U GONNA DO ABOUT IT ? Ruin everybody’s life with inefficient expensive renewable energy or - what would be a lot smarter - build hundreds of nuclear power plants and start to phase out fossil fuel power generation ?

Thanks for you thoughts.
How do you know that balance is a good thing for humans?
Why dose photosynthesis not enter your equation?
Why don't you mention the little ice age ending at the start of your diagrams.l/charts?
How do calculate the amount of co2 naturally produced by the planet?eg volcanically etc?
Why do you think only planet earth is warming an the rest of the solar system is in balance ?
I have many more questions but heres a start.

Again thank you for your theory.

Thanks

What about all the interemed stored infrared energie in buildings masses and dark surfaces like streets wich leads to higher temperatures in urban areas?

what about stratospheric cooling and the absorption of infra-red radiation?

your video explains where where i had difficulty understanding. the altitude upwards radiation to space begins is where it's blackbody radiation temp.
5.4km above is middle of troposphea where conduction and convection still occures. wouldn't it complicate the model?

Very clear video and Thank you very much from Thailand

Why are you including Albedo when there is no atmosphere, isn't this included in Stefan law for blackbody?

1) Is the energy received from Sun used in Earths different "spheres"?

2) Stefan-Bolztman equation relates T^4 to the heat energy balance Sun <-> Earth. How does T relate to the surface temperature of the Earth? If T is certain value what does it mean really in terms of the dynamically varying temperatures in the different "Spheres" of Earth?

3) How can you prove that the CO2 difference from 1870 to now is only from human sources? It is well known that in previous geological times CO2 was much higher than today and there was NO industry burning FF back then.

I have a small point, but I think a critical one to raise.

You use the example of it taking 2,267 joules/gram to evaporate water then show how that energy is transferred into the atmosphere. But you didn’t mention the energy balancing which would mean 2,267 joules is lost from the surface for each gram of liquid H2O to be evaporated. This could lead to some concluding that the energy at the surface is not effected by this transfer of energy of evaporating water.

Thank you for the video.

Nicely done! Great presentation! Thanks for your effort!

How do you explain that co2 levels were 1000 ppm millions years ago and that situation didnt produce an increase in temperature, but the opposite, a decrease ? This explanation does not explain the Evolution of the earth climate in the past. The climate system is highly stable and this explanation requieres a CO2 concentration almost constant to avoid a very unstable system.

In this argument, it's also crucial that the atmospheric lapse rate is not itself affected by changes in the greenhouse gas concentration. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to work our way down from the emission layer to the ground using a temperature curve of the same slope for all CO2 concentrations. This is indeed a good approximation because the lapse rate is determined by the majority gases (oxygen, nitrogen), not the trace gases.

very comprehensive, presenting material that is unexpected but essential to the story. Thanks so much.

This video provides some useful illustrations and explanations of how the earth is warmed by the sun, with some inaccuracies and deficiencies/flaws. Flaw: The effect of polar cap melting on albedo is overstated seems to me, as the angle of incidence of the sun rays is low. Deficiency: The transport of heat from the earth surface to the atmosphere by the water evaporation and cloud formation (water condensation) is not considered in the global warming model presented by the author.
Sadly, the author starts with the premise of impending environmental disaster due to human carbon dioxide induced global warming. Fact is, humans and the environment thrive when the climate is warmer. Plants use carbon dioxide as food, and plants need less water as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. The author reports that the earth temperature increased One Degree Celsius since 1870 due to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 280 ppm to 410 ppm -- is that so horrible? Can you tell the difference between 20 C (68 F) and 21 C (70 F)? In fact, the earth is getting greener due to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and crop yields are improving. The polar bear population increased from 5000 to 30,000 because the seal population increased (who cares about polar bears).

The Global Warming Hoax is one of the scams to force people to accept One World Government and Dystopian Population Control/Depopulation. The author reports that current atmospheric carbon dioxide is the highest in the last 800,000 years, but fact is atmospheric carbon dioxide level have exceeded 1000 ppm looking back through millions of years of earth history. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are not catastrophic to life on earth. Animals thrive with warmer temperatures. Plants thrive with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The author claims that without a suppression of human carbon dioxide emissions, the earth will warm 4 or 5 C with catastrophic devastation and human suffering -- This claim is pure fear mongering. The earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the last ice age -- long before humans started changing the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Milankovitch Cycles and volcanic activity are more important to the climate than human carbon dioxide.

Wow. I had no idea that the earth radiates thermal energy equal to the sun input. At such a far lower temperature.
Your model says exactly equal to solar input minus albedo. So we shine thermal radiation like a mini sun ? This must have an effect on satellites and the moon even. Amazing.
Just imagine what the kinetic energy gained by CO2 would do at even higher concentration.
Which far higher levels have previously existed.
That would mean it would be incredibly powerful for increasing heat energy, if it could kinetically warm 2499 times it’s mass from ambient thermal radiation levels. Obviously extremely
powerful stuff.

Why is it completely useless for that purpose ? There are more watts per square meter from a hair dryer than solar input even.

The earth loses far larger amounts of thermal energy through conductive transfer than thermal radiation.
Measuring the thermal energy of a molecule does not mean it is emitting forcing levels of photons versus inertia.

The earth surface, as you point out absorbs and gains, thermal energy from the sun. As you also point out, thermal radiation is not directional. So, an amount of forcing level energy is also radiating into the surface. Which would respond to that same as it responds to solar forcing. But the earth surface loses heat energy. Somehow. And (?) the trace amounts of air carbons ( especially when compared to the massive amounts of surface carbons ) are solely responsible for surface temperature gain ???
Something seems off. There are physicists who have modified the Stephan Boltzmann curve for density and other factors and not find hysterical results from CO2 levels.
Also, personal question, how exactly does the unit of measurement of watts per square meter apply to the thousands of cubic meters in the atmosphere ?
You gave a very thorough and detailed explanation of the theory. I appreciate that.
But, the blocking of thermal radiation by has to result in a thermal imbalance sufficient to drive temperature equilibrium from far smaller amounts of mass.
Pro tip. Increasing water vapor increases atmospheric density as well. I’m sure you know what that means.
And I’m sure it radiates equal to the extra energy retained. But you seem to expect forcing levels from the far lower atmospheric temperatures.
Personally I think there’s something wrong with the picture of the energy that watts per square meter is. How do you get watts positive to inertia from the far lower temperature of emissions.
Thanks though. Excellent presentation.

Great presentation in both format and content. Thanks

Now that we know what is bad, what then is the optimal temperature and CO2 level?

For the first time of my educational life I have seen such kind of video. Where you have showed how global warming is developed collaborating with thermal physics.Thanks a lot of Sir. ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

But per another perspective from meteorology: temp leads co2, not the other way around. Temp leads H2O-warm air holds more H20. Both saturate at some point.

I appreciate it that you listed the correct order of ghg potency. This is so misquoted by the press & even lots of textbooks. I go around writing publishers to correct this be/c many of them are trying to promote 1 narrative. Just today an article claimed CH4 was dominant over CO2.

Overall: This is a very good, comprehensive summary of the problem. Well done.

Don't forget, also, heat transfer from the surface to the air via evapotranspiration, which is actually several times the amount lost by conduction and (pure) convection.

I think you miss a point about the minor greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O--they seem to be more powerful than CO2 because they absorb in what would otherwise be infrared windows, so they are less saturated than CO2 (I know CO2 isn't saturated at the edges of its absorption bands, but it is more so than the others).