Water vapor is the “biggest” greenhouse gas involved in climate change, but it’s not the main driver. The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases, known as greenhouse gases, accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide, which is the most important greenhouse gas for climate change. Greenhouse gases vary in their sources, measures needed to control them, intensity of trapping solar heat, and duration of presence.
Several chemically reactive gases, such as CO, NOx, and VOC, control the abundance of O3 and the oxidizing capacity (OH) of the troposphere. Hydrogen is not directly a greenhouse gas, but its chemical reactions change the abundances of greenhouse gases methane, ozone, and stratospheric water. The greenhouse effect is the process through which heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by substances known as “greenhouse gases”.
Recent research has revealed that hydrogen has an indirect influence on atmospheric warming. Hydrochloric acid (HCl), also emitted by coal burning, has been largely overlooked as a driver of ecosystem change. Scope 1 emissions for HCL include combustion of diesel fuel in generator sets and boilers used to power campuses and fugitive emissions. Chlorine gases in the lower stratosphere interact with tiny cloud particles that form at extremely cold temperatures.
Greenhouse gases have a “greenhouse” effect, retaining heat and having a warming effect, just like greenhouses used to store heat. They absorb infrared radiation and trap its heat in the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect that results in global warming and climate change.
📹 Will THIS replace fossil fuels?
In this experiment see how carbon dioxide is given off by standard combustion and fossil fuels which leads to global climate …
Why is HF liquid but HCl is gas?
F, a compound with higher electronegativity than Cl, forms stronger H-bonds due to its greater electronegativity. This results in more energy needed to break H-bonds in HF than in Cl, resulting in a higher b. p. of HF than HCl. H-F is a liquid, while HCl is a gas at room temperature. This is evident in various exams such as IIT JEE, NEET, UP Board, Bihar Board, and CBSE. Free textbook solutions for various subjects are available, including KC Sinha Solutions for Maths, Cengage Solutions for Maths, DC Pandey Solutions for Physics, HC Verma Solutions for Physics, Sunil Batra Solutions for Physics, Pradeep Solutions for Physics, and Errorless Solutions for Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Free NCERT solutions are also available for various English Medium classes.
Is HCl hazardous to the environment?
Hydrochloric acid (HCl) is a highly corrosive substance that has the potential to cause environmental contamination at any stage of its life cycle, including during its manufacture, use, misuse, or disposal.
Is HCl toxic as a gas?
Hydrogen chloride gas has the potential to cause ocular, dermal, and respiratory irritation, leading to corrosive damage and, in extreme cases, pulmonary edema and even death when exposed to high levels.
What turns hydrochloric acid green?
The question “dissolving nickel in hydrochloric acid” implies that there should be excess chloride, resulting in a yellowish green solution. However, Jan’s answer explains the chemistry behind this question, which is often poorly worded in high school chemistry courses. The question aims to teach students how reactions occur and which products will form. The reactants are excess aqueous hydrochloric acid and free nickel, which are given as the reactants. The question is designed to test students’ ability to draw conclusions about which products will form when given the reactants.
Is hydrochloric acid is a greenhouse gas?
Despite its simple two-atom structure, hydrogen chloride is not a greenhouse gas due to its inability to absorb infrared radiation. This is a consequence of its dipole and bond vibration, which are absent in greenhouse gases, which can absorb infrared radiation.
Is HCl a pollutant?
In 1993, hydrochloric acid, a federal hazardous air pollutant, was identified as a toxic air contaminant under AB 2728. It can be found in an aqueous solution or as anhydrous hydrochloric acid.
Why does HCl exist as gas?
The intermolecular forces between hydrogen chloride molecules are relatively weak, and thus easily overcome by the molecules’ motion at room temperature. Consequently, there is no permanent dipole-dipole bonding, and hydrogen chloride does not condense until cooled to -85°C (188 K).
How does a gas become a greenhouse gas?
Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation from the Sun, causing heat to be 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 CO2 released from fossil fuel burning accumulates as an insulating blanket around Earth, trapping more Sun’s heat in the atmosphere. Human anthropogenic actions contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The contribution of a greenhouse gas depends on its heat absorption, re-radiation, and presence in the atmosphere.
How bad is HCl gas?
Hydrogen chloride gas can cause lungs irritation, coughing, and shortness of breath, leading to fluid build-up and potentially death. It can also cause eye damage, skin contact, and severe burns. Ingestion of concentrated hydrochloric acid can cause severe injuries to the mouth, throat, esophagus, and stomach. There is no antidote for these poisonings, but their effects can be treated and most exposed individuals recover. Serious exposures may require hospitalization. The severity of the symptoms depends on the severity of the exposure.
How does hydrogen act as a greenhouse gas?
Hydrogen, an indirect greenhouse gas, interacts with hydroxyl radicals in airborne molecules, thereby prolonging the lifetime of atmospheric methane and increasing the production of ozone. This occurs despite the fact that hydrogen does not cause a warming effect on its own.
Why is hydrogen considered to be a greenhouse friendly fuel source?
Green hydrogen is produced without the generation of harmful greenhouse gases through the process of electrolysis, which is powered by renewable energies such as wind or solar energy, and which extracts hydrogen from water.
📹 The Science Behind Global Warming: The Mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect
Timing of specific topics: 0:00 Intro: What are global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases, fossil fuels; 3:15 Brief synopsis …
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.
This is absolutely phenomenal, I mean of course not the condition of the world but the article. This is such a clear explanation of the science behind global warming without making a person have to research on 50 something websites for the same information. And the clarity with which it has been explained is something I cannot put into words. Thanks a ton!!
Super underrated article! If only people could dedicate 45 mins of active listening to watch this article (especially the extremists on both ends of the global warming spectrum), we could eliminate most of these polarizing arguments, most of which do not even mention the science. This is one of the reasons why I love STEM: it provides ground truth within a sea of lies and misconceptions.
Videos like this are so incredibly important. Thanks for posting this– I had no luck finding anything about the greenhouse mechanism other than difficult science or dumbed down articles (all basically just saying that greenhouse gases act to put IR energy back into the earth, i.e., the usual “greenhouse gases act like a blanket” and nothing else). This was most edifying and exactly at the right level for anyone who wants to get to an accessible depth with this. Again, so important to bring this information to a general audience.
Great article. As good as it is, I have to say it sets my teeth on edge hearing anyone say “a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor” since this is a complete misrepresentation. It really sticks out in this article, which is so thorough otherwise and not trying to be too simplified. How do you know that “a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor” is false? Because you’d get the same increase of water vapor with temperature even if there were no oxygen or nitrogen or any other atmospheric gases available to “hold” the water vapor.
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).
In addition to the higher emission altitude that averages about 5.5 km altitude (15km at 220 k for CO2, and 3.5km at 265 k for water vapor), the width of the absorption spectra also increases when the more insignificant ‘outer edges’ of these spectra becomes more significant with the a higher probability to absorb with more greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere. This narrows the atmospheric window, so that a broader emission spectrum to space at low temperatures will occur as well as a broader absorption spectrum near the surface increases the amount of absorbed radiant energy emitted by the surface. A very interesting and easy to understand article that is worth sharing.
Thank you for the great article. I am trying to understand better the transmission and absorption of up-going IR radiation, and the role of the atmospheric window. My understanding is that at every height in the atmosphere the atmosphere radiates as a black body. So at every height part of this spectrum of radiation can escape through the atmospheric window; at every height there is energy lost into space. You mention around 25:00 that it is a misconception that IR absorption directly increases temperature. My misconception is that the absorbed IR raises temperature, following which the energy is re-emitted as a spectrum of black body radiation, part of which would again be able to escape. Surely I haven’t understood the processes and would greatly appreciate further explanation, or perhaps you can point me to a article/article explaining it further.
Interesting but shows fundamentally wrong physics. There is no radiation transfer of heat in the athmosphere. It is only tranfered by convection in the high pressure at the surface. This means that the ammount of grean hous gasses have no impact of the surface temperature. The difference of temperature is related to the sunlight thats reaches the surface. As the difference in summer and winter far from the equator. The radiation is only valid in the stratosphere and higer altitudes. Also the mean temperature of the earth is derived form a flat surface whitch is not even close to the real shape of the earth.
Sir please upload more article on chemistry. Your ability to explain is top class, You can explain the concepts of each topic in a very good way and I can understand your every words. The way you lesson us,I love this way . Your #stoichiometry article and #polar and #nonpolar articles was my life changing article . Sir make more article please please please please 🙏 🙏
Really great !! The most comprehensive article I have seen on the GHG effect, with all the physical phenomenons detailed, even calculations (how we know that -18°C would be Earth temperature witout any GHG). Thanks ! The only missing point probably being why high altitude atmosphere temperature decreases (as this phenomenon precisely invalidates the assumption that sun variability would be responsible of the current warming).
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.
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 article.
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 article.
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.
Very cool article, I covered this only in year 10, in IGCSEs chemistry in very little detail. This was interesting for going so much in depth, so thank you! Unfortunately the world is only money oriented… I don’t think people understand that it’s not the only problem, we are destroying the world in so many ways, and no solution is going to allow us to live with the same quality of life we have now, we are polluting too much, and the disparity is too great… So much for we’re all equal…
Hi and thanks for this great article! One thing I still can’t get my head around: The rise of atmospheric temperature is from air heated at the earth surface and then moving up (convection)? This process is increased because earth “needs” a higher temperature now that the increased greenhouse gases forces the IR-escape to a higher (and therefore colder) point. Okay, but what is the mechanism by which this “need” is articulated? I guess the same amount of air is heated at earth surface with or without higher amount of CO2. What would have happened with this air in pre-industrial times? It would have risen and then been transferred by conduction of kinetic energy in to CO2 at the original lower height and got “vented out” there?
Really great explanation! I have a question about the albedo. How much does cloud cover affect the albedo? Since clouds appear white I’m assuming they reflect light similarly to the north and south poles( or is that a misconception?). And Since global warming leads to more water vapor in the athmosphere, does this atleast have the effect of more clouds reflecting more sun light and slowing the feedback loop you describe at the 37:20?
Question… when you are discussing Stefan Boltzmann Law in the beginning it seems like you neglect that temperature is not the same across the earth, that the daylight side is warmer than the dark side and the equator is warmer than the poles. This would throw things off especially since temperature radiant energy is expressed to the 4th power of temperature. What you are describing is a simplification but it may help to make a note of that… the temperature is not equal across the surface of the earth. Also in the first discussion you say energy in = energy out. Really it is energy in = energy out + energy retained by greenhouse gas… as in the whole climate changing thing would imply there is more energy retained over time and that the earth is in fact not at an ‘equilibrium’ by definition (‘change’ is opposite to equilibrium) and is actually radiating LESS energy than it absorbs. I think you try to circle back to that in the latter half of the article but it gets a little muddled and confusing in parts.
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.
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 ?
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.
It’s one thing non-scientists – ignorant of the complexities and mechanisms having strong views, but another when you get the likes of Professor (emeritus, retired) of physics – William Happer – putting out many Youtube articles rubbishing the effect of CO2. He claims in one, that doubling the atmospheric concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will make virtually no difference. Are you aware of this seemingly plausible chap, and if so, what would you say to him? (As far as I can see all he promotes is predicated on denying the warming influence of CO2 – with no supporting evidence other than a dodgy model. His professional background includes spectroscopy, so one presumes he understands the Beer-Lambert law…)
Your discussion about the altitude of -18 C air is implausible. The temperature gradient isn’t uniform. Jet streams, latitude, convection, clouds all mess with temperatures at all alritudes. You are talking about some kind of model of the earth, not the real world. For example, what is the altitude of -18″ at the poles? Why that’s often underground!
This article 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.
Your explanation of vibrational modes was excellent, except that you neglected to indicate that the very narrow IR band that CO2 absorbs energy, appx between 14-16 micrometers, is more than 70% overlapped by water vapor, in that nearly 100% of the energy available in this band is already absorbed at just 285 ppm CO2 (in fact, already 50% of the available energy is absorbed at just 20 ppm and 70% at just 40 ppm). This leaves CO2 only able to nominally drive temperature from 285 ppm and beyond. In essence, CO2 has already blocked as much of the sun’s energy as it will be able to block at any concentration. Further temperature increases as a proportion of CO2 is now (essentially) asymptotic and virtually zero.
But what if the numbers were fudged, in order to fit a monetary narrative. I’m not saying that the chemistry is incorrect, just the amount’s. For instance, why are our readings totally different from Russian results (which are far lower). Why have none of the predicted events, that show that we are over due for extinction, not happened. why is there no effort to improve gas vehicle emissions (perhaps they aren’t as bad as they say), if so immanent. Why only one political party onboard, yet purchasing from foreign countries more. Why sell our strategic reserves to a known high emission polluting country, China. Perhaps, this has more to due with corruption (money). Take a step back and look at the series of events that led to today, through MSM, sun and Earth History back to the ice age, pole shifts and why examples are so far away, that they are hard to verify (fact check). Look out side, not on YouTube.
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.