The greenhouse effect is a process that occurs when greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, trap solar energy in the atmosphere, leading to Earth’s average temperature. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is responsible for over a quarter of the current global warming. The greenhouse effect keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to facilitate life, and without it, humans on Earth would not exist. Greenhouse Earth is characterized by a lack of continental ice sheets, high levels of carbon dioxide, water, and methane, and sea-surface temperatures that range.
The greenhouse effect causes some of this energy to be waylaid in the atmosphere, absorbed, and released by greenhouse gases. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s temperature would be below freezing. Recent studies show that icehouse conditions preferentially occur when supercontinents are assembled and continental volcanism wanes. Conversely, greenhouse periods, such as Huronian glaciation, occur when there are no glaciers on the planet.
The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet’s atmosphere insulate the planet from losing heat to space, raising its surface temperature. Interglacials last for 20,000 years or less, and ice retreats toward the poles. Human activities add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, trapping more heat than usual and contributing to global warming. Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of H2O is the most important greenhouse gas that influences Earth’s climate system.
📹 The Biggest Myth About Climate Change
You’ve seen it in the comment section before: “Climate change is natural. It’s happened before and it will keep happening”.
How does Earth act as a greenhouse?
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon where the Earth’s surface absorbs infrared radiation from the Sun, which is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, raising its temperature. This process, unlike the warming in a greenhouse, does not trap warmed air inside the building. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average surface temperature would be around -18°C (0°F). On Venus, the high concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an extreme greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures as high as 450°C (840°F)
What is considered a greenhouse?
A greenhouse is a glass structure used for controlling temperature and humidity for plant cultivation or protection. It traps heat from the sun’s rays inside, keeping plants warm even in cold weather. The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs Earth’s heat, causing the greenhouse effect, which traps some of that energy. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, are responsible for this effect.
These gases absorb heat and release heat energy, which is often absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. Although greenhouse gases don’t have a hard surface like glass, they have a similar effect on keeping the planet warm. The greenhouse effect keeps temperatures mild and suitable for living things, and the greenhouse effect is a significant concern for our planet.
What are greenhouse conditions on Earth?
The greenhouse effect occurs when infrared radiation from the Sun is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds, causing the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere to warm. These gases absorb heat from the Sun, which is circulated in the atmosphere and eventually lost to space. They also increase the rate at which the atmosphere can absorb short-wave radiation from the Sun, but this has a weaker effect on global temperatures. The release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels accumulates as an insulating blanket around Earth, trapping more of the Sun’s heat in our atmosphere.
What is greenhouse condition?
Plants thrive at temperatures between 18-24°C and relative humidity between 40-80%. To ensure a rich harvest, fertilize, water regularly, and use Ruuvi sensors to monitor greenhouse conditions. This will allow you to start growing crops in early spring and collect harvests into autumn.
Transfer tomato seedlings to the greenhouse when the temperature doesn’t fall below 15°C at night and cucumbers when it remains above 18°C. The temperature should be lower at night and higher in the day, with a temperature not exceeding 26°C. Temperature monitoring is also crucial during winter if plants have been moved to the greenhouse for overwintering. By following these tips, you can maximize your greenhouse’s potential and ensure a successful harvest.
How long has the greenhouse effect existed?
The greenhouse effect, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the sun’s warming effect is greater for air with water vapor than dry air, and even greater with carbon dioxide. The term “greenhouse” was first applied to this phenomenon by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901. The greenhouse effect on Earth is defined as the infrared radiative effect of all infrared absorbing constituents in the atmosphere, including greenhouse gases (GHGs), clouds, and some aerosols. The enhanced greenhouse effect is due to human action increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a more significant natural greenhouse effect.
Where on Earth does the greenhouse effect occur?
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon where Earth’s atmosphere traps the Sun’s heat, causing it to become warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. This process is crucial for maintaining Earth’s comfort and warmth. Greenhouses, which are structures with glass walls and roofs, are used to grow plants like tomatoes and tropical flowers, allowing the greenhouse effect to occur. The greenhouse effect is a result of the Earth’s natural processes and the greenhouse effect.
What is a greenhouse climate?
The greenhouse effect is a process where heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor. These gases help maintain a warmer temperature than it would otherwise have. Carbon dioxide is crucial for maintaining Earth’s atmosphere stability, as it would collapse the terrestrial greenhouse effect and drop Earth’s surface temperature by approximately 33°C (59°F).
Earth is often called the ‘Goldilocks’ planet due to its natural greenhouse effect, which maintains an average temperature of 15°C (59°F). However, human activities, primarily from burning fossil fuels, have disrupted Earth’s energy balance, leading to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades, trapping extra heat near the planet’s surface and causing temperatures to rise.
What is the time period of climate?
The term “climate” is used to describe the long-term average patterns of temperature, humidity, and rainfall that occur over the course of seasons, years, or decades. The NASA Global Climate Change website provides an overview of the known causes, effects, and indications of global climate change, covering seasonal, yearly, and decadal timeframes.
What is Earth’s greenhouse?
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon where Earth’s atmosphere traps the Sun’s heat, causing it to become warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. This process is crucial for maintaining Earth’s comfort and warmth. Greenhouses, which are structures with glass walls and roofs, are used to grow plants like tomatoes and tropical flowers, allowing the greenhouse effect to occur. The greenhouse effect is a result of the Earth’s natural processes and the greenhouse effect.
What temperature is a greenhouse?
The optimal greenhouse temperature range for most common crops is 18°C (64°F – 75°F), which is commonly found in greenhouses worldwide. Temperatures outside this range can lead to slower growth and suboptimal crop quality. Controlling humidity is crucial in greenhouses and indoor growing facilities, as untreated humidity can cause problems and inefficiencies. Unoptimal conditions can result in slower growth, smaller crops, and reduced crop quality. Unchecked humidity can also cause condensation, leading to diseases like botrytis and downy mildew, which can rapidly destroy large amounts of vegetables, cannabis, or other crops.
What is the greenhouse event on Earth?
The greenhouse effect is the natural warming of the Earth caused by gases trapping heat from the sun, which would otherwise escape into space. This process, identified by scientists in the 1800s, makes the Earth habitable. Around 30% of solar energy reaches the Earth, while the rest is absorbed by the atmosphere or Earth’s surface. This process warms the planet, causing infrared radiation to be absorbed by atmospheric gases, causing further warming.
However, higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), are causing extra heat to be trapped and causing average global temperatures to rise. For most of the past 800, 000 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was between 200 and 280 parts per million. However, in 2013, due to burning fossil fuels and deforestation, CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, a level not seen on the planet for millions of years. As of 2023, it has reached over 420 parts per million, 50% higher than preindustrial levels.
📹 Debunking Myths About CO2, Global Warming & Greenhouse Gases
Climate change deniers make many false claims about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These include the idea that …
honestly love the way you talk about this “the people who discovered how the climate naturally changes over time are climate scientists, the same group of people who discovered the climate change we’re currently facing is human caused.” is kind of a connection that should be obvious but it really hits different when spoken out loud. kind of a fun realization seeing how the reason the example comment at the start of the article knows about it in the first place are the same people he’s trying to use that argument against.
20’000 years ago, Europe had the “Weichselian glaciation”. The continent was covered by a 2000 by 3000 kilometer ice sheet that was up to 3 kilometers thick. The sea levels were 120 meters lower than they are today. No one knows for sure why this cold age ended. What we do know for sure is, that humans couldn’t possibly have been the reason. Resonable climate change sceptics won’t deny that humans influence the climate, they just say that human influence is tiny when compared to natural events.
Break the connection between Climate change, money, and power. Wait five years and see if there is still interest in climate change or if we shift our focus onto the next money or power grab. Humans have very short memories. Can humans do in a year (non-nuclear) what a single volcano can do to make a year without a summer?
Remember when there was that solar flare that wiped out all of the pagers (pre-cell phones)? I had my pager that day and thought nothing of it, but all the rest of the doctors in the hospital were blissfully unaware that the Emergency Room lit up and the nurses were screaming “Where are all the doctors? I’ve paged EVERYBODY!”
I think you have to mention that is not all of us guilty of global warming. It is mainly the rischest 10% of the people who consume most of the energy and emit most of the CO2 too. The poorest 50% of the people hardly emit any carbon. This is why economic inequality also has a big impact in our climate, scientists say…
I appreciate the vid and the explanation. But why do you use a graph at 3.00 min, where the distance down to -1.5% is equal to the distance up of 0.5%? According to the graph, the temperature dropped 1.5% from 1880 to 1910. From the 1940s to the 1970s it seems to have returned to the temperature of 1880. Then the temperature goes up approximately 0.8%, however the distance going up in the graph is three time that of the distance going down per 1%. As a result, the temperature going up from the 1970s seems visually much more than the shift down from 1880 to 1910, but the real temperature shift, according to your graph, has been 0.8% up compared to 1.5% down. Why did you make this skewd comparison?
Even if you take the debate out of climate change, what could be the harm in trying to clean up the environment we all live in, other than it might effect some billionaires profit margin, but what good is wealth without clean water to drink, fresh clean air to breathe, healthy natural food to eat and wildlife to appreciate and possibly learn from? Just because one arrogant neighbor chooses to live like an ignorant slob and doesn’t maintain their property, throws garbage, and other junk, in their yard, but still thinks they “know everything” about any subject (from looking at tiktok,), should everyone else just lower their standards and give up trying to take care of their own? Like it or not, High Tide Is Coming, isn’t it better to at least try our best to slow it down for the sake of future generations? Where is the harm in trying?
Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I’m sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious
This -18 degrees Celsius without a greenhouse effect would be the case assuming the Earth albedo would be identical to the current one. In reality it would be way lower due to the ice and snow, as would be the temperature. In fact during the periods of a snowball Earth, the poles were so cold that the condensation of CO2 was occuring there
I have a problem with massive multi-billion dollar companies wanting to keep providing extra carbon while blaming your car and your cheeseburger, trying to take both away from you while they buy “carbon credits” to keep polluting. also false or misleading advertising which fails to point out that you make a much bigger carbon footprint getting a new electric vehicle if you don’t keep that one for over 6 years of driving. Or politicians who refuse to work on upgrading the power grid, tell us NOT to charge EVs, but tell us that we HAVE TO buy one, when they are still full of TOXIC lithium batteries while Humans have SUCH a spotless record when it comes to waste management (see pacific garbage patch). Lithium Apocalypse everyone ?
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect There’s a common belief that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere leads to more global warming. However, this idea is challenged by some scientists and the basic laws of physics: Beer’s – Lambert’s Law. A study of this by H. Hug from about 50 years ago using FTIR spectroscopy supports this view. Michel van Biezen also has a series of 4-minute YouTube lectures, Astronomy and the Atmosphere, that provide easily understandable information on this topic. The absorption of infrared heat from the Earth’s surface by CO2 is most effective at a specific wavelength (14.97 micrometers). This absorption reaches a maximum, or becomes saturated, at relatively low CO2 levels (less than 100 parts per million) just meters from the earth’s surface. Beyond this concentration, adding more CO2 doesn’t significantly increase heat absorption because all the infrared (IR) radiation that CO2 can absorb is already being fully absorbed close to the Earth’s surface. This accounts for about 10 degrees Celsius of basic Greenhouse warming. The speculation that CO2 can re-emit absorbed IR radiation into the upper atmosphere and cause further warming from CO2 conflicts with Beer’s – Lambert’s Law and with the spectroscopy data that confirms the end point to absorption. Virtually all of the heat that CO2 can absorb is already accomplished. Other wavelengths of CO2 absorption, near 2, 3, and 4 micrometers, and even in the proposed wider band of 14.8 to 16 micrometers, excluding 14.97 of course, contribute very little to overall absorption.
One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends.
I always feel like the narrative that says that climate change is not our fault, is fueled by a desire to keep living our lives the same way we are doing now. Continue buying stuff, producing stuff, driving cars everywhere. This denial of the facts seems also fueled by our general innate resistance to change and our desire for continued short term economic profit 🤷♀️ If everyone changed their ways all at once, how are these climate change causing industries continue to make money? Naw, better to say it is not your fault so please keep consuming as you’ve been consuming for the past decades instead of changing 🤷♀️😑
what is the optimal temperature for earth? (for the planet, not for humans, we are only passengers here) i dont think i have ever heard anyone comment about that. is a little warmer better? is a little colder better? why? is there an average over the last x million years and we use that for a measuring stick? i have a hundred questions about sciency stuff… my teachers hated when i raised my hand in school.
What I think is the biggest cause that is at the root of our current climate problem: we are with far too many people on this planet. For some reason “we” seem to believe that how well we are doing, is measured in progress. Progress is measured in technical prowess and the size of our economy, hoe much new stuff we produce and sell. “We” also seem to relentlessly want more of everything, consume more of everything. And at the same time our numbers are growing. But our resources are finite, as is the habitable space on the surface of our home. The surface that is not habited, is either uninhabitable, or used for growing our food – which we need more and more of. The balance is off way in the wrong direction. Technology isn’t going to solve this.
Even if it were completely natural, that doesn’t change the fact that it will be devastating for us if we don’t do something about it now. We’re the first species that’s been able to understand it or that has the ability to control the climate. For the sake of our species, we should deal with it, regardless of the cause.
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven years. Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once. “If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe,” said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt. This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet’s climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it.
Listening to this article made me realize that why the planet is warming is irrelevant. It is warming and much to fast for the ecosystems to adjust. We face mass extinctions and if humans want to continue to live, we should do something about it (even if we would not have been responsible). The fact that we are causing climate change means we are also able to get us out of that mess
I just hope that the climate change deniers that troll the PBS Terra website don’t come troll the place here as for a lot of them there is absolutely no amount of knowledge that will make them change their mind. Like I already said, I’m not worried about the earth as a chunk of rock; I’m worried about the quality of life we’ll have here. The big goal in the end is not to save the the big boulder we live on, but to save ourselves as we have no other place to go.
On the topic of volcanoes, the January volcano in Tonga is said to have spewed an extraordinary amount of seawater into the atmosphere due to its caldera being water, rather than the usual predominantly sulfurous magma, so this explosion has actually increased temperatures globally, rather than reducing them as Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo did. Does this particular greenhouse effect of additional water molecules in the stratosphere potentially lead to yet another acceleration of warming, or is it another of the relatively minor effects that diminish over time as you discussed? Thank you for your wonderful explanations!
I have been landscaping in philadelphia for 40 years. The first 25 or so were the same season started mid april ran till mid october. Then it started around april 1st and ran till halloween….I started this season 3 days ago…..third time in the last 6 years i had to start in mid march….i now finish around mid november last year it was the 18th…..the season is around 6 to 8 weeks longer then it used to be….just so you know i am apolitical……what i am saying is not to support a political view. I am simply stating a fact. The climate is changing and i know it because it has affected my vocation. Also there always used to be a part of the season around late july where there was a break in the action due to high temps and lack of rain….the lawns would turn brown. That doesn’t happen anymore because there is more rain……the lawns don’t brown out and stop growing. Its a different world out there now.Things are changing. Just saying.
Must pur on my climate scientist har for a moment. I saw the thumbnail. Climate change is natural. What isn’t natural is the rate of change. The rate is unprecenteded. In the past, climate swings took thousands of years. We have managed to completely shift the climate in just a few hundred. The last big climate swing we caused was due to agriculture and even that took over 1000 years. That is why we are all worried. It is hard to understand how species can adapt to climate shifts when every other change they have endured took eons to occur.
just the other day i watched a article talking about the icebergs in iceland and climate change… and i was actually shocked at the amount of people in the comments saying we basically can’t do anything about it because it’s “all natural” and we shouldn’t try to fix it because “there’s nothing to fix” and just “prepare” for it… even when there was an expert in the article talking about it very much being accelerated by us even if it’s natural… which… do people really need an expert to say it… like for real?? it’s more than obvious we are destroying this planet..
When the chemicals that were found to be causing the hole in the ozone layer, we had only really been using them on mass for maybe 50 or 60 years, now most of that damage has been reversed because we took action. We’ve been pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere for much longer and it much higher quantities Than any of the chemicals involved in damaging the ozone layer, so it’s completely understandable that we have caused this. However, unlike the air-conditioning industry, the fossil fuel industry is probably the wealthiest, most powerful and most politically connected than any other industry on earth and of course they don’t want the gravy train to stop chugging. The saddest part about all of this is, even Margaret Thatcher, the absolute darling to conservatives who tend to oppose climate change was completely bought into the fact that man-made climate change was occurring and that something needed to be done about it. And that was in the bloody 80s. Plus, most of the people who use the climate is always changing argument. Still seem to be the people saying that we should make no preparations as a species for the changes that is happening, okay, even if the sea levels weren’t rising because of us or storms weren’t getting worse because of us, you still advocate doing absolutely nothing. That’s how you know they are bad faith actors
If someone says “climate change is natural” to me, I just reply “so is extinction, do you want that”. Even if it was all natural, the fact is that we don’t want change. We have built all of our infrastructure where it is now, over hundreds of years. If we allow climate change to happen, most of it will be lost at enormous cost. Not to mention all the food production that will also be lost. People complain about the costs of changing away from fossil fuels. But we are losing more from increased frequency of “natural” disasters, hurricanes, cyclones, flooding etc. It is also costing us in more costly food production. All of this denial is put about by fossil industry megalomaniacs who are only interested in their short term gains from the damage they cause.
I’ve watched the whole article; pinky promise. From the toxically misinformed twitter tweets to the slowest magic trick to the salty spitballing of new show ideas. Granting that it’s important to curb greenhouse gas emissions of industrial chemicals, DihydrogenMonoxide in the atmosphere is also a greenhouse gas; would it behoove us to try to condense and collect it? Both to reduce greenhouse gas in the air, and also to combat global droughts?
It always bothered me that we called it “climate change” rather than discussing CO2 pollution CO2 pollution directly causes lake and stream acidification. It created ocean dead zones. It causes deadly toxic algea blooms that make swimming and recreation impossible. It kills fish and we eat fish. CO2 pollution we could have delt with but … noooo… we had to discuss the abstract, long term, easy to ignore idea of “climate change” Yes, absolutely, climate changes. It warms, it cools, it gets wetter or drier. But CO2 pollution is a very real, very serious toxin we’re just dumping into the environment
I’m regularly getting angry about the ignorance non scientists have towards scientific research (that’s not even much disputed in the scientifc community). If the scientists, the smartest people we have in the field of research, come to a conclusion and almost all of them agree on the issue, who is someone who “did his own research” by perusal some conspiracy theories online, sponsored by groups of interest whos business depends on continuing the status quo, to disagree with the vigor they do?
A few questions I am seeing in skeptic discussions, maybe you could help clear them out: – What is the climate sensitivity for co2 or how much does earth warms upon a doubling of the co2 concentration in the atmosphere? What is this function? Is it a constant or it diminishes or increases depending the proportion of co2? – What is the average time it takes for a full cycle of a photon depositing energy from the sun onto the surface and returning back to space as radiation given co2 at 0ppm vs higher concentrations like 500ppm?
It’s like throwing something at the ground as hard as you can and then arguing “I didn’t smash it, gravity is natural, everything is pulled down” edit: well that analogy as good as it sounds isn’t really useful if you don’t already know how the whole thing works. So it’s not gonna be useful in convincing anyone that disagrees. more accurately it’d be more like the lights were out when it happened, with lots of people hearing it, and the smashed to pieces object laying on the floor with the suspected person suspiciously standing next to it, so based on the circumstances and the broken object all it can be infered that this exact thing happened, all the evidence is there and good enough to put together an accurate pictuer, but technically no one did “see” it happen. It’s a good analogy both in terms of equivilance of what’s happening and what kinds of information are missing but it’s not gonna be useful in convincing anybody. A much more convincing argument would be what joe repeated in this article a bunch: “The field of science that told you about how earth’s climate naturally changes over time is the same field of science that says the climate changes we’re currently experiencing are absolutely caused by human activity. It’s all climate scientists. They didn’t just selectively forget about it, the natural shifts are already being accounted for.”
It’s also worth noting that modern humans were able to develop in the way we did because the climate was stable for a relatively long period of time. We rely on that stable climate to continue our current existence and further development. If we wish to create our perfect home and stick to it, we really need to do what we can to keep a stable climate (and also keep a healthy level of biodiversity). Our activities have a huge impact on the systems we depend on for our existence and it’s shocking to me that the oceans have masked that impact for some time. It goes to show how much of a difference we made in barely 250 years time. Shifting baseline syndrome makes it harder to really see what’s going on, so education is key.
Proof I watched the whole article: “America Outdoors: Under story” I have a friend who believes climate change and temperature increasing is natural. I was unable to convince him why that’s wrong. I just shared this article with him. Hopefully he watches it and changes his mind. Thanks for this great article!
It’s also worth remembering that natural isn’t harmless. Even if we found a “natural” cause to climate change (yes, I know we won’t) we’d still have to do something because it would still be making the planet unlivable. Most mass extinction events come with massive climate change, not just the Great Dying. The Oxygen Catastrophe also featured very successful life changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, causing massive climate change, and being unable to survive in the new world of it’s own making so humans can’t even be special about that. I mean, we’re doing it faster. But we’re still not the first.
The 1930s had some of the hottest days on record here in the USA. In 1931 over 90% of the country was 95 degrees or higher in the month of July. 1936 was much of the same. The CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. I don’t think this country has seen anything like that since. Unfortunately, most climate alarmists ignore anything that occurred before 1985.
How can I prove I watched the whole thing without listing every of the debunks? Even then, I could just have skimmed it and took notes. But seriously, the thing I found most interesting was how limestone was formed. Those who watched the whole thing will know and share the knowledge that some of our buildings are (omitted to avoid spoiler) that are made of (omitted to avoid spoiler).
Don’t forget that every building roof and blacktop that we build absorb heat also. So yes we make a small difference. But I think MOST is a natural change from 1000s of years cycle. We won’t change our modern lifestyle enough to change anything enough no matter how hard we wish it. FYI, yes i did watch the whole thing. You never said what percentage is humans fault, I think its a small percentage.
That is trube but still we should use a bit less of unecessary things andprotect others being useed for corporate profit. I took the time to call for a real revolution and wrote a song about negligence when it comes to climate change. So many people protest but still buy the newest cell phones, clothes and splurge. It is time for them to really make a stand, start a real revolution and fight for those making cents an hour just to feed their families. 🚀🚀
There is a combination more dangerous than actual ignorance and simple arrogance. The mistaken impression that because one has read a few things about science one is not ignorant, combined with the malignant arrogance to insist that anyone who does not agree with one’s opinion is deficient, negligent, morally bankrupt, or criminal, and should therefore be silenced, now that is a truly dangerous mix. This comment should cut both ways, and, I hope, cause people on both sides of this debate to take a look at their own attitudes.
We hear about “trigger points” all the time now a days. Since the last ice age, the glacial front has receded about 20 miles per year. As these glacial recede, they reveal darker masses underneath them. These darker masses absorb more heat than would have been reflected by the ice sheets. So, as more and more of these dark masses where revealed, did we hit a “trigger point” that accelerated the melting and allowed for more temperature absorption?
Debate anything false, Glaciers build in the Winter and melt in the Summer, nothing unusual about this right? what we can point to as Unusual is Summer time Forest fire, fires dont burn well in the winter so Glaciers increase in frequency with the absence of forest fire, nothing about Man Made in this Scenario, debate anything false.
It’s interesting how 100 million years ago there was 5 to 10 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and yet plant and animal life was larger in size and more abundant. The temperature was fine for life, nothing was drowning from rising sea levels, and there were many ice ages since then. Facts
The UK used to be warmer for the Romans. When the Romans ruled Britain, known as the Roman Warm Period or Roman Climatic Optimum, is characterized by evidence of warmer conditions. This period, approximately from 250 BC to AD 400, was marked by unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic. During this time, there are indications that the climate was mild enough to allow for the cultivation of grapevines in regions such as northern England, which would typically be too cool for such crops today. The warmth of the Roman period is supported by various types of evidence, including tree ring data, which suggest that the climate was warmer than previously thought, potentially making the cultivation of certain crops like grapes in northern England feasible.
Very informative article, and the concepts were well explained. However, my only gripe has to be with the references; they seemed all over the place. For example, Joule, Juul and Jewel (8:41). Like you have an e-cigarette and a singer most popular in the 90s/2000s. These are somewhat niche references. What demographic are you catering to? Also, some of these are just executed poorly… you reference the Predator’s thermal vision with a very obscure picture of the Predator (5:40). I first thought you were talking about the dog and was so confused. And also, the mention of Elon Musk’s age seemed really unnecessary, like what kinda perspective is that. (9:35) Kind of nitpicking, but the topic of Climate Change is very important, and I feel the references in this article did not help. I think this is the fault of the article’s writer and editor. I don’t know if they were just trying to be mainstream, especially with the Hot Ones mention and memes. Again they were all over the place. What general audience would understand all of these references? It just causes more confusion.
2023 Canadian wildfires From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Beginning in March 2023, and with increased intensity starting in June, Canada was affected by a record-setting series of wildfires. All 13 provinces and territories were affected, with large fires in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The 2023 wildfire season had the most area burned in Canada’s recorded history, surpassing the 1989, 1995, and 2014 fire seasons, as well as in recorded North American history, surpassing the 2020 Western US wildfire season.
as much fun as it is for people to watch this article for further understanding and to share these points with people we know which might help, this article alone isn’t gonna help anyone who already thinks climate change isn’t real. people who believe the science (or those who have no reason to question it) will enjoy the snarky comments, the eye roll inducing logic of non believers, poking frivolous holes into the theories our fathers and uncles give credit to, and all the other “holier than thou” “were so much smarter” sentiments from this article. but for people who dont this would un-ironically push them further into their beliefs, just look at the comments below or the recent ones. the reason they get trapped into these ideas is bc they get affirmation along the way for ignorant thoughts/ideas they already had. these people had some ideas they were maybe genuinely curious about. and before they could find someone who would praise their curiosity and lead it to the science and reason that lets us KNOW climate change is real, they ran into 100 different versions of this article in other articles, articles, news segments, and other pro climate change media. condescending, overly harsh, tone deaf explanations as to why “we are smart, you are dumb”. people dont respond to critique like that well, as much as they may be factually or even logically misled, stuff like this is certainly not the answer. to even call something like this critique is almost useless, this is more akin to beating a dead horse, but the horse is in a coffin 6 feet underground.
Here’s the deal…yes the Earth’s climate changes drastically over time and sometimes suddenly for a variety of reasons. Earth is currently naturally warming, and human activity seems to be increasing the rate by which this happens. As far as I can tell, the actual issue is that the amount, variety, and complexity of the data involved in trying to measure this on the scale of a planet is so massive that it seems extremely difficult to make accurate predictions. However, specific predictions have and are being made. Some of which have not come to pass, and have seemingly been used as the basis for policies that are putting people out of work and limiting the people’s ability to use heat in places like europe. So it’s no wonder the lay person is skeptical of scientists ability to literally predict the weather (and yes I mean climate, just using a colloquialism) on a global scale and therefore skeptical of that necessarily provisional and immensely obtuse data set being used to make predictions that seem to be financially incentivised moreso by their political and socioeconomic utility than their accuracy in making specific predictions that are useful to humanity as a whole. And for those predictions to then be used by politicians and groups of powerful interests to impose laws on the general population based on them when supposedly the vast majority of carbon emissions come from 100 companies seems extremely sketchy and unjust. And it seems to me that scientists too are a victim to this because their career, livlihood, and/or reputation becomes tied up process of selected funding and pressure to create very specific predictions, that just so happen to justify policies that hurt people and benefit power instead of just allowing for the science to go where it may.
Whatever is said is said but the facts remain, when your bath is empty the water is gone, when the ice age is over the ice has gone, sea levels have been hundreds of feet higher and lower than the current levels, sitting here looking up at the chalk sea cliffs i can see cockles and mussels shell embedded 50ft up and i ask myself do shellfish when they die leap out of the sea and embed themselves up there? People used to walk from Britain to Europe across doggerland thats now dogger bank under the sea, nobody was causing a massive release of carbon in these eras, and nobody was making billions frightening people with the science paid for by the billionaires, to replace the fossil fuels with ground raping green technology because the fossil fuels are running low and are becoming uneconomical
Who is this article for? As someone working in environmental communications I doubt the people writing comments saying climate change is natural would be able to understand this. If they don’t understand climate change, why would they get a joke about trickle down economics? I think we (those of us in climate science education) need to stop making articles and articles for our peers and instead tailor our communications for the intended audience using their interests to explain things. Figure out where the majority of climate disbelievers shop, what music they listen to, and what items they buy and use that information in the article so that it speaks to them
I don’t raise my children to orient their psychological and emotional life to permanent crisis response. I teach them to be responsible and to realize that life is short and the world is big and time is a mystery and being kind to folks in their daily lives is more important than shouting at each other. I teach them to be concerned about pollution and waste – things they can see and affect. If extinction is our fate, so be it. Life is bigger than anything the zeitgeist can describe it as.
– We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago and the cancer will go away – I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today May 21, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 125 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Anyone who does not believe that the climate changed for the reason I mentioned should wait for cancer to disappear very soon because of this reverse movement, I will explain: the human body’s immune system will be stimulated, activated and stronger as a result of this reverse process, which results in the disappearance of the cancer. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory.
So what caused the climate change that ended the ice age? That caused and ended the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods? The Little Ice Age? The African Humid Period? And all the other climate changes before 1850? If you look at the cycles of the past warm periods, you’ll notice the modern warm period is right on schedule and cooler than the previous ones. That last bit should concern you.
You miss understood. The satellite record is the real time data. Not a model. If you look at the models, they calibrated themselves using the sattelite record. The sattelite record started on 1979. There was a warming from 1979 to the beginning of the 2000’s. The models assumed the warming was being caused by the increase in CO2. But since 2000 the satellite has not recorded the same amount of warming as even predicted by the model that presumed the lowest amount of warming . All climate models have over predicted the warming being caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It was cheap energy that brings people out of poverty. We are putting people back into poverty and according to real time data, for no reason.
I stopped and thought about this awhile ago and made so research of my own.. One of the puzzling questions I had was: How did the glaciers melt? There were no big human cities, no planes,cars, no industries etc… and by far not, as many humans as there is now! It would have taken either a huge catastrophic event that plummeted the earth into a heat dome..but then it would have also put the earth into a long and cold winter effect for years afterwards… or was it simply a natural, gradual “climate change”. The answer is in front of us. Our past holds the key. I’m sure that we help the process with our carbon traces exponentially. But there’s an obvious trend going on.
There’s malicious intent read into the initial comment. Assuming it’s due to it being a reaction to some claim, but even after all the talk, I see nothing factually wrong with claiming a) that there was an ice age and b) that the person commenting heard something about palm trees on Antarctica (hearsay can never be disproven) Just listing a lot of reasons about why climate is changing more drastically since we have started measuring and reading records, to me does not make a valid scientific proof.
The one data set using all those data points you mentioned is called the RSS. Not sure what it stands for, but again the RSS data set of measurements is cooler than what all the models predicted by a significant amount. Though RSS data set is showing a little warmer temperatures than the sattelite record
For a long time I’ve accepted the belief that increase in CO2 is increasing the temperature, but starting to reevaluate this, so would like to learn more. Could the increase be caused by an increase in total surface area that absorbs more sun energy rather than CO2. Surface area must surely have increased through building more and higher buildings and using materials, such as concrete, that absorbs more heat. Question is of genuine interest to llearn and hold true beliefs.
From what you’ve said I don’t even think 🤔 anyone really knows anything about climate change weather human or natural!!! But I myself think 🤔 we could try harder not to use as much energy as we do!!! I’ve never noticed before but lots of people leave their car’s and trucks running with the air conditioner on here in Texas so when they come back to it it’s already nice and cool!!! But I’ve seen people gone from a running car while in a restaurant eating and then return as if that’s a good thing!!!! No I don’t think anyone knows what’s causing it but it’s a good bet we don’t need to continue pumping our blanking blank into the Earth’s atmosphere or waters or cover the frozen poles with soot!!! But good luck 🤞🍀 trying to nail down the guilty culprit!!!!
We called it summer & winter. Happened every year i remember being on Earth. Lol. But seriously, could it be fair we influenced local area climates with how we developed major cities. I would bet Los Angeles ground surface temps was more then 5-10° cooler b4 we got to it. US in general, how we mowed down so many green spaces to lay down asphalt for huge overgrown car parks
I have a professor and literally every discussion we’ve had she ask us something about climate change and it literally has nothing to do with the class and she just makes us watch liberal ass articles about climate change and we aren’t even suppose to learn about that and then she does mandatory extra credit with these for our exams
It’s interesting how you don’t accept all of the pieces of natural science and that the models supposedly have everything in them, but you have to install fudge factors to get the answers you need. One interesting fallacy is that the TSI only changes by 0.1% yet we know that the spectral signature from the sun changes by orders of magnitude for various types of radiation. Amount of energy is not as important as the type of energy. Natural variation is much larger than the GCM error indexes meaning simply that GCMs are not able to differentiate natural variation from a climate change signature. It’s just not possible mathematically with the current models.
To prove it’s real just take the literal hole in the ozone that we caused from using a gas from 1930 to the 2000’s now imagine that gas but among billions and multiple that by every day in the year. Not the mention the record breaking heat last year and the snow drought we’ve had for the past couple of years I remember snow used to be to my knee now it barely even sticks
The Elites Give Incentives for Ethnic Division on Campuses | Thomas Sowell Thomas Sowell 156K subscribers 11,309 views Apr 28, 2024 To be sensitive, as ideologically defined, requires that one not merely accept but “affirm” other people’s way of life or even “celebrate” diversity in general. Like other demands for “sensitivity,” this demand offers no reason—unless fear of being disapproved, denounced, or harassed is a reason.
@bobbybooshay8641 1 month ago I’m 62 years old and have been crabbing on the same creek in south Jersey for about 55 years. The same water level now as when I was a kid. The banks of the creek are in the same spot. The bridge over Route 9 and the bulkheads get the same water height now as when I was kid. There is absolutely no man made global warming and certainly no sea level rise.
Why is this filmed in a mock-up child’s bedroom, including plastic ‘space rockets’ ? Clearly someone has been given a brief and money to write it, he’s been paid to act it out. It’s produced to order. Can you imagine someone doing there own painstaking research, keep going till they understand it, getting it approved by their peers, and then presenting it – like this. They would have to be insane! At best it’s a brief introduction to a few subjects which may or may not influence the climate.
Test nr1: try and couple Co2 and temperature over a long time frame. Answer: almost NO connection. Test nr 2: IF those two seem to work in tandem which comes first? It is TEMPERATURE. Game over. Well ok, for the smarty pants: show me ‘back radiation’ without using models and/or assumed ( and flawed) concepts of physics. What are the vibrational modes of Co2? What is the relation between the amount of Co2 and H2o in the atmosphere and their interaction. How does IR ACTUALLY work (no shortcuts)? Ok, NOW you have reached level 2 and you can continue. Otherwise, stay in kindergarten and believe what the nice man says..
It’s not the carbon emissions. It’s all these cities building on every stretch of land they can that is the real problem. Look at Los Angeles and NYC on a map. Why are they both so hot in the summer? It’s because these megatropolis cities are just huge frying pans of concrete, steel, asphalt and glass. All four materials absorb and magnify heat. So these congested cities of people living in sardine cans are no different than using a stove with the door open to warm a room, because heat loves moving towards where there is a lack of heat. So what’s the problem? Over building areas for PROFIT.
I like how he opens the article by calling everyone ignorant but he doesn’t once question his own theory and calls it a fact anyway. Irony. I disagree that humans have the effect you say but I am willing to hear out the other side. While you just plug your ears and call everyone stupid. Practice what you preach buddy.
March 22 every year the Sun is in Overhead Position 12 hours daylight. this means Solar Rays are the Most intense this time of Year at the Equator, the Northern Hemisphere will be in Spring Equinox, things are very hot in Thailand right now, this perhaps describes rainy weather every March in California. September 23 is Autum Equinox and the Equator receives Overhead Position again 12 hour daylight
OK, what is a functional solution to climate change issues, and how do you make places like China get on board? The United States had a lot more nuclear power plants than are here now. Is nuclear power an opinion? Because people are not just going to go into the intermittent power dark age willingly. Batteries are carbon intensive, and so is solar and wind. Even nuclear power plants have Diesel back up generators.
None of these arguments discuss the mechanism of how only .042% of our atmosphere captures enough heat to raise the temperature of the surface of the earth. This continues to preach correlation = causation. I would really like more examples of the physics of how CO2 captures heat. The chart on the climate impact of gases does not discuss the physics of why these particular hold so much more heat.
I am reading and perusal as much as I can about this important and controversial issue. I am trying to listen to both sides of the issue. This article is impressive in a number of ways, but the snarky comments by the narrator really undermine his credibility – it’s obvious that for him this in not only an intellectual issue, but an emotional issue which makes his statements and objectivity suspect. There is no reason to use the “F” bomb in the middle of what should be an impartial and factual rebuttal. One of the turnoffs to someone who is sincerely trying to understand the issue is the injection of emotion in what should be a strictly factual discussion of a very important issue. Too many folks on both sides of the debate seem to enjoy criticizing their opposites. When this happens all the good points made by the critic are overshadowed. The vitriol expressed by the narrator made me want to turn off this article, but I hung with it through the end because I thought he was making some very interesting points. But it does leave me wondering how capable of the narrator is about separating his feelings from the facts. Having said that, there is one factual argument that the narrator attempts to rebut which I think he misunderstands (or perhaps I am the one who misunderstands). That is the argument about the diminishing impact of increasing amounts of CO2 because they absorb only a narrow band-with of the infrared radiation emitted by the earth. It I understand the argument of the skeptic it is that the infrared radiation emitted by the earth is rather constant and so there is a limited quantity of photons emitted by the earth which are possible for CO2 molecules to absorb.
Where is your sea level rise? Why do pictures of Miami from the 60s look exactly the same as they do now? Why do we not see any rise in Sydney, San Francisco, Honolulu, Fiji, Miami, NYC, etc? The reported rate of sea level rise, if you want to believe it, is about a foot over 100 years. I’m sure we can outrun that. Nothing to see here. Why do you people insist of thinking ice shelfs will increase sea level. Floating ice DOES NOT increase sea levels when it melts.
11:40 I agreed with you until here, and with everything that came after but your attempts to rebut this articles arguments fall flat. Best leave rebutting this to someone who understands what he’s talking about. His article questions how much heat CO2 can absorb, something which is still being investigated. The temperature impacts you quoted earlier on are based on a historic correlation, so as far as I’m aware the true capability of carbon dioxide to absorb heat and raise global temperatures hasn’t been determined and requires more study. Correlation is not causation, it’s similar to circumstantial evidence of a crime. I think it’s unwise for us to embark on a global crusade against carbon dioxide without properly finding the hard facts.
Don’t you find it to be in pretty bad taste to include Richard Lindzen in a article about people who reject the notion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, contributing to warming the planet? Not engaging in anything he claims but just going for cheap ad hominem? Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is released by human activity, but to what extent does this ONE single parameter affect global and regional climate among a host of other factors? The earth has warmed, yes, with like 1 degree C globally on average since 1950, and during that same time humans have seen the greatest prosperity in our history, but 0.5 degrees more is going to end the world? Give me a break.
From about 8:16 to 16:57 in the article, you address the idea that CO2 is a much less significant greenhouse gas than water vapor. You make some good points, but I wanted to add a few more to help provide further context. There are at least 6 reasons why CO2 is more significant for long-term global warming than is water vapor: 1) CO2 absorbs energy at wavelengths missed by water vapor. 2) CO2 has a longer atmospheric residence time than does water vapor. 3) Atmospheric water vapor levels are more responsive to temperature changes than are atmospheric CO2 levels; that is: CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas, while water vapor is a condensing greenhouse gas. So water vapor is worse at driving up long-term warming on its own, since it will typically fall as precipitation if atmospheric temperature drops too low. 4) There’s a robust, long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature. 5) Water vapor levels sharply decrease with increasing altitude in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), while levels of well-mixed greenhouse gases (such as CO2) are more uniform with increasing altitude. Thus CO2 is able to exert a relatively stronger greenhouse effect higher in the troposphere. 6) At best, water vapor serves as fast feedback that amplifies the warming from factors such as CO2. Clouds that develop from water vapor, can also act as fast positive feedback or as negative feedback, depending on how high those clouds are in the atmosphere. These effects are important, since CO2-induced global warming has augmented atmospheric water vapor levels, as expected, since warmer air can hold more moisture.
barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg Look at the diagram. CO2 is a minor player that only absorbs and emits in 3 limited wavelengths. Only two of those are relevant. CO2 is invisible to 92% of what the earth emits. And only half of what CO2 emits is aimed back towards the earth. And it doesn’t matter how much CO2 there is. It still only absorbs/ emits in those limited wavelengths. Green house gases just delay the race to an uneasy equilibrium. There isn’t any runaway affect and won’t be as long as the earth’s rotation stays the way it is. Venus barely rotates, which led to its fate.