But HOW Does Carbon Dioxide Trap Heat?

Check out NOVA's video on cloud seeding and the PBS Earth Month Playlist:
• How the West Is Making...
We all know about the greenhouse effect, but how many of us actually understand it? Turns out, CO2 is not a “blanket,” and saying it “absorbs” heat is barely half the story. In today’s episode we figure out what’s so special about this one molecule that allows 0.04% of it to change our entire planet.
For more on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: plato.stanford...
1959 Video about Vibrational Modes:
• Vibration of Molecules...
You might also like other Reactions videos:
EU’s Ban On Tattoo Ink: Breaking Down the Chemistry:
• EU’s Ban On Tattoo Ink...
How Carbon Capture Works:
• How Does Carbon Captur...
Why is Carbon Monoxide So Deadly? - GTKAM:
• Why is Carbon Monoxide...
Why is Carbon the Key to Life? (On Earth, Anyway):
• Why is Carbon the Key ...
This Toxic Gas is Responsible for Almost All Our Food:
• This Toxic Gas is Resp...
Credits:
Executive Producer:
Matthew Radcliff
Producers:
Elaine Seward
Andrew Sobey
Darren Weaver
Writer/Host:
George Zaidan
Scientific Consultants:
W. Paige Hall, Ph.D.
Leila Duman, Ph.D.
Brianne Raccor, Ph.D.
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Reactions is a production of the American Chemical Society.
© 2023 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved.
Sources:
docs.google.co...

[@balahmay]

Finally I can feel like I really understand this. Thanks for the excellent explanation.

[@singingway]

This is exactly what I've been trying to understand. Thanks!

[@krystleyoung5328]

Thank you! I've been trying to wrap my head around this concept to teach others and this video just made it a whole lot easier for me to understand. I love the metaphor too, will definitely be using it when explaining to others.

[@grindupBaker]

This is a good Part 1 because it includes 9:37 to 9:56 instead of the usual annoying irrelevance "absorbs and then re-emits 50% back down to the surface". This is Part 1 which is only ABSORPTION in the air. There's a required Part 2 that is absent from this video. Part 2 is MANUFACTURE in the air. Hint: Presenter never states the phrase "tropospheric temperature lapse rate", but it's ESSENTIAL because, guess what, ..... cooler parcels of matter radiate less than warmer parcels of matter (the stratospheric "greenhouse effect" is backwards).

[@Jedermeister]

I am going to show my class this video. Fantastic.

[@kucami1]

Same. Good timing as we go from spectroscopy to the teeny tiny bit of stat mech we can still cover in the last couple weeks.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

Make sure and tell your students that humans have only added 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts total atmosphere, and that Mythbusters had to add 523 times MORE CO2 in order to get the temperture to rise 0.9 degrees in their test chamber. Then they will understand that climate change is giant lie.

[@joelweiner4156]

Regarding your description of CO2 increasing in KE (around 10:15) and transferring that increase to O2 and N2 via conduction, thus increasing atmospheric temperature: This is a misconception and entirely incorrect. Warming occurs via a disruption to the earth's energy equilibrium. Yes, the absorbed IR will increase GHG KE, which has two results, either a release of IR, which brings the GHG KE back to pre-absorption KE, or a transfer of KE to surrounding molecules. The latter can result in a momentary localized warming. Momentary due to eventually (and quickly) tranferring, via conduction, that energy back to a GHG, which will then emit it as IR. All localized increases in KE eventually end up at a GHG that will emit IR. Of course the GHG can start a new cycle of conduction, but it always comes back to a GHG, which at some point releases the energy as IR, which is eventually either lost to space or lost to the earth via IR absorption at the surface. There is no net change in KE in the atmosphere. The consequences of increasing CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere is to disrupt any established energy equilibrium between incoming solar energy and outgoing IR energy. The increase in atmospheric temperature that we call global warming comes from the earth retaining more solar energy to increase IR output in an "effort" to reestablish the equilibrium that has been lost through increasing atmospheric GHGs. As the earth retains more solar energy, much of that is transferred as heat to the atmosphere via conduction, and so the atmosphere increases in temperature. CO2 and other GHGs do not trap heat in the way you describe. They trap IR energy, which does not translate to higher KE beyond a short moment as described. Global warming is a phenomenon of disrupted energy equilibrium, not a phenomenon of simple energy collection. The warming occurring in a bottle with more CO2 in it is due to the localized increase in KE being trapped, via conduction, by the material of the bottle itself, whether glass or plastic, and conducting KE back into the bottle (as well as out).

[@shanef.4151]

I found this comment really intriguing and I've been trying to find other online sources that say the same thing. Most websites describe the increase in temperature being caused by the reflection of IR energy back into the surface of the earth, which in turn causes more heat to rise in order to maintain the energy equilibrium you describe. Although either way its the same issue, I'd like to be more knowledgeable on the specifics. Do you know where I can find more information on the point you're making?

[@1lightheaded]

​@@shanef.4151.

[@egregius9314]

​@@shanef.4151 The term you might want to look for is 'thermalisation'. It refers to the process of GHG molecules giving off their increased energy to surrounding molecules. There are some interesting discussions about which process dominates at which atmospheric pressure, aka at which level of the atmosphere. Is it radiation, or thermalisation + convection? Not sure joel is correct here, but I'm no expert; I came here because I didn't grasp things fully. He might be :)

[@dolemite72]

I get it now! 🎉 i truly appreciate your explanation

[@olahafs]

Wait, so the energy a photon gives to a molecule is not by having it exite electrons to other orbits? Or did he just skip that part to make it simpler to understand? And another thing when I watches Sabine Hossenfelder talk about this she did not mention this , she had more focus on the altidude of the molecules in the atmosphear emittet energy. Could someone help clear things up for me?

[@ChristopherCurtis]

No scientist here, but I think you got it. The electron _is_ excited, but you still have conservation of momentum, so the molecule also feels a "photon pressure" like the way a solar sail works, or one of those glass bulbs with the black and white spinning blades. So there is additional motion from the momentum of the photon (hf), which the CO2 molecule can then give to another molecule by bumping into it. EDIT: People don't like my answer, but if we're talking about UV photons, I think this is still valid (with the energy delta being a Stokes shift). For the "bumping" I was referring to the general scenario at 9:40 though I acknowledge that's talking about IR explicitly.

[@paigehall2667]

As a previous commenter stated, molecules can partition energy across four different types of quantum states: translational, rotational, vibrational, and electronic. Energy gaps between electronic states are large, so to excite an electron you would need more energy than an IR photon can provide -- you would need a UV or visible photon. Vibrational energy gaps are smaller, so a vibrational transition can be caused by an infrared photon, which is the process described in this video. There is no electronic excitation happening during infrared absorption, nor is the photon simply "bumping into" the molecule to give it momentum. The photon's energy is being absorbed by the molecule, which causes the molecule to vibrate at a higher frequency.

[@williambenn6251]

Brilliant .... Fun, full of information put simply...Very well organized.

[@shoutitallloud]

Could you please make videoi explaining how SO2 gas causes opposite to greenhouse effect?

[@thomasmartin406]

Wondering why the question .. maybe because most of the temp rise from the bottom of the mini ice age in the mid 1700's happened before 1940 .. before we really got industrialized... and the cooling from 1930 till mid 1970's while CO2 rose dramatically had to be explained some how ?

[@awkweird_panda]

The quality of videos on this channel is amazing💯Great work.

[@ACSReactions]

We aim for excellence--and are glad you like it.

[@marko90000]

It is not just that Co2 traps heat but also that we have a lot of infrared emitions by the desert itself every day sahara hits over 40 celsius and it goes down to less then 10 degrees at night. So that is a lot of emissions every single day.

[@grindupBaker]

Babbling rubbish

[@jean-pierredevent970]

I studied some chemistry and wonder now if CO2 can be compared to a coloring substance in water where the concentration is according to the law of Lambert Beer. I guess not but it's an example of the many very difficult question which can be asked, going deeper into what actually happens. I wonder if a new photon is released, it will have a lower energy. That seems normal. However would there also be a rare process leading to the creation of photons with slightly higher energy?? How ? No idea, perhaps a collision of a CO2 molecule with two oxygens at once or so leading to the absorption of extra energy.

[@grindupBaker]

"If a new photon is released, it will have a lower energy". I've also idly wondered about whether there's partial gain and partial loss of vibration, but not enough to study and I've not come across anything definitive reliable.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Meanwhile I looked further and "elastic collisions" (wikipedia) seem possible in the molecular world. It's so much against our experience in the macro world that I have trouble believing it ;-) @@grindupBaker

[@williamrondon]

Hello. Thank you for your explanation. I have a few questions. You mention that the water molecule can absorb a photon, while CO2 works more like a "conduit", is there also a cycle in which the water molecule that absorbs a photon, causing it to vibrate faster, collides with other O2 or N2 molecules making them have more energy? Why, if there are more H2O molecules in the air, isn't this the main greenhouse effect?

[@ACSReactions]

Sorry for the slow reply, but this is a great question! The reason CO2 is the bigger concern is that we aren't increasing the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. H2O is widely present on Earth-there are whole oceans of the stuff!-so the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is mainly dependent on temperature. CO2, on the other hand, we're constantly _creating_ and adding to the atmosphere, increasing its concentration. So while it's true that H2O has a more significant effect on the temperature than CO2, that effect is stable, whereas CO2 is very much not.

[@kawamach]

Great video. You explained short wave radiation dynamics, which is about half of planetary thermoregulation, which in the end does not stays trapped in the atmosphere resulting in climate cooling; but, What about long wave radiation? It gets trapped and results in climate warming. Climate cooling and warming maintains a balanced temperature in the planet that has allowed life to thrive. The problem that we have currently is the excess of carbon dioxide concentration that has not been seen in about 10 million years; this gas is effective in trapping long wave radiation. We would need a video about this to explain Climate Change. Thanks.

[@arthurfoyt6727]

At 1:02 "fill up a glass box" means that IR does not get into the box; the GLASS prevents it. Hello?

[@Phootaba]

Geeez, That end of the video was a bit scary. And I half expected a segue into kurzgesagt!

[@grittyjogginglovers7298]

Enjoyed...got new ideas 💡

[@fractalnomics]

5:18 N2 and O2 6:19 electric field dipole moment 10:00 CO2 as a conduit

[@TheGuruNetOn]

So basically CO2 acts like a kind of randomised windmill. Could this effect be used to harness kinetic energy and generate electricity by channeling or focusing that energy? CO2 is already causing massive cyclones in the atmosphere (Coriolis effect??) and jetstreams in the upper atmosphere, so we know that it works on the large scale. Can we make it work on a micro scale? Greenhouses work to heat up horticulture. Can we harness the effect for electricity generation?

[@R_SINGH_BISHT.]

I like the way you teach vibrational rotational IR . Thanku for educating this universe. And salute for vedio editing skills. Thanku for every single infographics.. Watching from india 🇮🇳

[@stephenkneller6435]

Good description. Now address balancing energy received from the sun to that radiates into space.

[@willowmobilesystems4008]

Great content! Now explore, explain and suggest what this means for temps rising at the Earth's SURFACE. Because that IS the concern and CO2 absorbing light in the atmosphere doesn't completely explain how temps at the surface are rising.

[@grindupBaker]

No. There's a required Part 2 that's absent from this video. Part 2 is MANUFACTURE in the air. This is Part 1 which is only ABSORPTION in the air. Hint: Presenter never states the phrase "tropospheric temperature lapse rate" (but it's ESSENTIAL).

[@slaznum1]

Ok, how can we slow those molecules down again?

[@NosseSlicka]

sick video

[@a.randomjack6661]

CO2eq at 523PPM (2022 number) CO2eq is all greenhouse gases (except water vapor) normalized at CO2=1.

[@alphadeltatango5957]

Really underrated channel. Great explanation!

[@anon69_q]

My notifications didn’t go off for this vid

[@tokajileo5928]

would be great to explain why CH4 is ever worse than CO2 regarding greenhouse effect

[@DeepakKumar-lv4te]

I had a dipole moment where i understood this but I'm ok now.

[@willemvandebeek]

👏Brilliant video!👏

[@dianewallace6064]

This is similar to Paul Beckwith's You Tube channel video where he reviews a paper "Heat stored in the Earth system (1960-2020): Where does the energy go?" on the EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance) that the earth has gained 0.48 W per square meter between 2006 to 2020. This extra energy is distributed thus: 89% to water, 5% to land, 4% to cryosphere and 2% to atmosphere. So the 21 trillion J per second increase over the US since 1750 is then distributed to the Ocean, land and cryoshere? I would assume so and heats the Oceans terribly.

[@memtesin5918]

Has anyone ever measured the actual change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

[@grindupBaker]

It's been measured non-stop very accurately since 1950, about twice per day or some such. The difference between the north with its huge annual saw tooth (seasonal leaves & decay) and the south with minimal saw tooth is measured. It's massively famous measurement for decades. It's totally jaw-dropping that you couldn't even be bothered to check this. Just beggars belief.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

great

[@AdityaMehendale]

Why can we (relatively) ignore the water-molecules in the atmosphere? Shouldn't they be contributing substantially more to "photon-to-heat" conversion (due to their abundance as well as their dipole-moments)

[@ACSReactions]

Oh we definitely can't ignore them. They're an important part of the equation. But the way you add more water vapor to the atmosphere is by increasing heat, and the way you increase heat is through greenhouse gas emissions. So the water molecules are a significant positive feedback mechanism, but the increase in water vapor is a _result_ of warming rather than a primary cause.

[@AdityaMehendale]

@@ACSReactions The intuitive thinking (fallacy?) would be as follows: In the atmosphere, in years bygone, H2O was 2500 PPM whereas CO2 was 300PPM. Today, this is 2500PPM (or more?) and 400 PPM respectively. Let's say that H2O has 2x the propensity to convert photons to heat. So the past equivalent of 2x2500 + 300 has now be replaced by 2x2500 + 400. So 5400 units instead of 5300. Does this pan out? (or do you say that the loop causes even more free H2O?) - I would've have incorrectly guessed that 53-->54 (i.e. 2% increase in absorptivity) wouldn't have a huge effect. Conversely, does this mean that "direct air dehumidification" shall provide a more impactful short-term/temporary "global-cooling" than direct carbon-capture? The other matter is that of the unabsorbed light - what happens to this? If not absorbed by atmospheric CO2&H2O, wouldn't it just end up heating the earth's surface? Instead, e.g. wouldn't coating desert landscapes with a high-albedo material like BaSO4 be more effective than removing atmospheric CO2 to regulate global temperature? Thanks! (and great speech/scene transitions in the videography, BTW :)

[@Rennpferd2]

Along the same line , if the CO2 was not in the atmosphere wouldn't the oceans absorb this energy and evaporate more causing more H20 in the atmosphere to capture more energy?

[@BioTechproject27]

Water generally is more of an accelerator, as it can be found in the three basic phases. When carbon dioxide generally absorbs more IR, this in turn reduces the amount of energy that leaves the planet through radiation, causing more water to evaporate, which also reduces the amount of energy that leaves the planet through radiation. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels fall, more water can condense (thus less is there to absorb leaving radiation) or even freeze and actively reflect sunlight. Carbon dioxide does not change states. It always stays in the atmosphere and always absorbs and remmits outgoing radiation. So yes, eventhough they partially compete, that does not mean carbon dioxide does all the heating, the water does thanks to the carbon dioxide.

[@BioTechproject27]

"Today, this is 2500PPM (or more?) and 400 PPM respectively. Let's say that H2O has 2x the propensity to convert photons to heat. So the past equivalent of 2x2500 + 300 has now be replaced by 2x2500 + 400. So 5400 units instead of 5300. Does this pan out? (or do you say that the loop causes even more free H2O?) - I would've have incorrectly guessed that 53-->54 (i.e. 2% increase in absorptivity) wouldn't have a huge effect." You forgot that now that the air is warmer it can hold much more water vapour, which absorbs much more IR than carbon dioxide. However water itself cannot cause a runaway effect as it will reach saturation levels at some point, unlike carbon dioxide. "Conversely, does this mean that "direct air dehumidification" shall provide a more impactful short-term/temporary "global-cooling" than direct carbon-capture?" No, because most water vapour comes from the oceans. And they are huge and difficult to build on. Secondly if you do it in areas with plants, those plants have to draw more water and will dry faster which will destabilize those ecosystems even more. And dehumidification simply isn't good enough in dry areas. "The other matter is that of the unabsorbed light - what happens to this? If not absorbed by atmospheric CO2&H2O, wouldn't it just end up heating the earth's surface? Instead, e.g. wouldn't coating desert landscapes with a high-albedo material like BaSO4 be more effective than removing atmospheric CO2 to regulate global temperature?" The video explained something very poorly here. The carbon dioxide and water does not absorb (much) of the incoming light. Rather it absorbs the outgoing light radiated from the earths surface where it then has a roughly 50% chance of being remmitted back to the surface. And coating itself isn't that efficient, you'd need a lot more barium sulfate covered surface, or you need to produce nanoparticles to make use of mie scattering, which themselves break down if left unprotected. Under perfect conditions you'd need to cover roughly 2% of the earths surface to actually negate the warming effect carbon dioxide has. That is huge and much more expensive than DCC. Also covering those areas in very large amounts may have unpredicatble effects on weather patterns. Plus you gotta remember that all kinds of organisms still live in those places.

[@boldjawad]

Nova sent me here

[@nobullman5853]

" Got no shame cause i got no ONE 2 blame "

[@carpemkarzi]

Great video and editing on point!

[@BarryPiper]

The reason "THEY" don't teach this molecular-scale interaction between matter and energy (aside from high school physics and/or earth science classes, where "THEY" certainly do teach this) is because it's over the heads of most people and they really don't need to know it. Trying to teach this to everyone is a great way to turn people off and get them to stop caring. Climate change is, all by itself, already an overwhelming concept - let's not add physics to that burden, m'kay? 'Greenhouse effect' is a good analog to the system because most people can comprehend what happens in a greenhouse.

[@johncgibson4720]

Yeah, the thing about "dipole moment" is that it scares away most people, even most science major students. Dipole moment is used in antenna design in electrical engineering courses. Dipole antenna etc, which no normal humans can understand.

[@scottsmith287]

Klaus Schwab approves.

[@felawes]

Net Zero - ugh. So flawed.

[@youngchemist]

Question: What They Don’t Teach You About Climate Change Answer: Because they can not teach this physical chemistry lecture to everone so easy .

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

Question: What climaphics don't teach you. Answer: Climate change is a fraud. Humans have only added 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts total atmosphere. Mythbusters had to add 523 times MORE CO2 in order to get the temperture to rise 0.9 degrees in their test chamber.

[@dianewallace6064]

Thank you. Here's a related question. I heard a Chemical Engineer say that hydrogen gas that is leaked creates hydrogen positive ions in the upper atmosphere which bind either free electrons or bind with greenhouse gas molecules' negative dipoles and therefore inhibit the breakdown of greenhouse gases by a factor of 11 times . Can you do a video on this?

[@dianewallace6064]

I read an article that answered this. H2 gas leaks into the atmosphere and breaks into H cations which bind OH anions. Fewer OH anions inhibit greenhouse gas degradation in the atmosphere.

[@glennmartin6492]

Now explain women.

[@lorenzzorzt]

As a 12 year old this video explains greenhouse gases in detail while being easy to learn at the same time.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

FACT: Humans have only added 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts total atmosphere. Mythbusters had to add 523 times MORE CO2 in order to get the temperture to rise 0.9 degrees in their test chamber.

[@BioTechproject27]

@@YourInvestmentAdvise Because water is an important factor too. Water generally is more of an accelerator of global warming/cooling, as it can be found in the three basic phases. When carbon dioxide generally absorbs more IR, this in turn reduces the amount of energy that leaves the planet through radiation, causing more water to evaporate, which also reduces the amount of energy that leaves the planet through radiation. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels fall, more water can condense (thus less is there to absorb leaving radiation) or even freeze and actively reflect sunlight. Carbon dioxide does not change states. It always stays in the atmosphere and always absorbs and remmits outgoing radiation. So yes, that does not mean carbon dioxide does all the heating, the water does thanks to the carbon dioxide.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

@@BioTechproject27 Here's the problem. Humans have added a TEENY TINY amount of CO2. 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts total atmosphere.

[@BioTechproject27]

​@@YourInvestmentAdvise "Teeny tiny?" We have literally 1.5x the amount of carbon dioxide since pre-industrialization. (~280ppm-~420ppm) And with carbon dioxide being the main driver, I'd say it's a bit more than "teeny tiny". And especially with water being a positive feedback, it makes it so much worse.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

@@BioTechproject27 You keep lying with statistics. 140 ppm is exactly the same as 1.4 parts per 10,000. Mythbusters inadvertently proved that this tiny amount of CO2 has, as one would expect, a tiny effect on temperature. I have a video about this for anyone who doesn't suffer from confirmation bias and wants to be educated.

[@tomduke1297]

so... when we where at 280ppm we had 1 heater running and it was nice and cosy.... now we have 2 heaters running and its getting hot in here. got it. so... with greenhouse gasses having halflives in the decades to hundreds of years and us doing our best to add a 3rd heater by 2040.... what are our chances? i had planned to life into the 2080s, seems like civilisation as we know it is not gonna make it that far.

[@aaronmost2858]

I don't want to be a downer, but I'd recommend accepting our chances to be very low. I can see and feel the difference between my childhood and now (~20 years). Way less bugs and wildlife in general, weather is more severe, seasons are harsher. And I know I'm not the only average joe that's felt and observed this in my own local areas in the last 20 years alone. Obviously, this is all anecdotal, but we can't deny that the climate and biodiversity will continue to degrade even if we could cap CO2 @ 400 ppm for the next 500 years. Our only shot is to capture it faster than what we currently produce and even faster to reverse decades of polluting. Then you need to add politics and profit into the equation, because money and power are obviously humanities #1 priority. IMO we unfortunately got the timeline that doesn't figure this equation out.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

Humans have only added 1.4 parts CO2 to 10,000 parts total atmosphere. Mythbusters had to add 523 times MORE CO2 in order to get the temperture to rise 0.9 degrees in their test chamber.

[@BioTechproject27]

@@YourInvestmentAdvise Jesus, stop spreading incomplete data that you try to project. I've given an explanation already. If you only have dangerous half-knowledge, don't claim or imply things. Instead ask for e.g. what your data means.

[@BioTechproject27]

It's a geopolitical issue that will require governments and people to work together. Yet you still observe climate "sceptics" even in the governments still after so many decades. It will be a long and painful road unfortunately.

[@YourInvestmentAdvise]

@@BioTechproject27 Jesus, stop spreading empty posts. All of the numbers I cited are true. 1.4 parts to 10,000 is next to nothing. Mythbusters conspicuously proved it.

[@john2001plus]

11:13 Yet our climate is more comfortable today than it was in the 1880s when years of cold weather killed hundreds.

[@1lightheaded]

Linus Pauling two Nobel prizes and then he lied hus face off anout vitimin C

[@thawineethongprajiad943]

Dude what a great video. I could see the amount of work and effort put into every single detail and the cut was seamless. I needed this video.

[@djmit44]

Let me just add one more comment praising the quality of your videos. This video made an important, and frankly complex, topic very accessible and intelligible. And you did it with great charisma and editing to pull us all in.

[@ACSReactions]

Hey thanks for the kind words

[@nyali2]

@@ACSReactions Since 280ppm we have added on 1,8W/m2 due to increased CO2? True? What is the variability of the albedo? I assume clouds are not constant. What is the +- w/m2 if we change albedo by 1%?

[@YodaWhat]

@@ACSReactions *Nice, but this explanation of Greenhouse Effect is still quite oversimplified.* For starters: The air Pressure also plays a role, as it influences air Density, and that changes with Altitude. In turn, air Temperature varies with Altitude, so the intensity of the Greenhouse Effect also varies with pressure/altitude. Then there is the *feedback effect* of the warmer air causing more water to evaporate, and water vapor is a much more potent Greenhouse Gas than CO2. The warming effect of extra water vapor is non-linear. In fact, it is exponential, as slightly warmer air causes much more water to evaporate, and that extra water vapor traps more heat, causing even more evaporation, and so on ... Creating a vicious circle of increased heating. Luckily though, the radiative Power of all these active molecules also increases. In fact, *radiative Power varies in proportion to the **_4th power_** of the Absolute temperature.* (Where 4th power means the square of the square or T^4.) Unfortunately, most of the extra heating happens in the lower atmosphere, where the Greenhouse Effect is also strongest, thus trapping more and more heat close to the ground. Nature's remedy for that problem is Rainstorms, Thunderstorms, and Hurricanes. They all carry the warm, humid air to higher altitudes, where expansion of the rising air causes much of the water vapor to condense, but now it is ABOVE most of the Greenhouse Effect and can therefore Radiate heat into outer space, where it belongs. But... (isn't there always another 'but'?) BUT the air rising from the warm and humid surface creates inflows of cooler and drier air aloft, which mixes with the rising air, dilutes it, and often kills the process. Otherwise, we would have constant rainstorms everywhere. *Bottom line: **_It's a complicated system of balanced effects_** and extra Carbon Dioxide throws off the balance.*

[@YodaWhat]

@@nyali2 ​*One percent* is considerably more than we would have to raise NET GLOBAL albedo to stop the excess heating. But the altitude of the extra reflectivity makes a HUGE difference. See my other comment here.

[@LuinTathren]

Your editor deserves a raise.

[@ACSReactions]

Shhh. We don't want Andrew's head to get any bigger! J/K. Thanks for the kind words.

[@TheGuruNetOn]

​@@ACSReactionsyou deserve a raise too. 🤔😏

[@WForrestFrantz]

Well done! "uses the energy from photons to make nearby molecules move faster". . Energy states (the O-C-O relationship) in CO2 are quantum. They only change in quantum amounts. That is why CO2 has only a few narrow bandwidth of photons it can absorb. In fact, each bandwith would be a thin line (not a tiny normal distribution of frequencies around that thin line) if it wasn't for the Doppler effect (molecules are moving at about the speed of sound). A crash between two molecules isn't quantum (think about the infinite number of ways that N2 can approach CO2 as the Oxygen molecules vibrate towards and away from the incoming N2). So, no energy is transferred because a higher CO2 state can't collaspe to its stable state. It's all or nothing. The change in energy (potential to photonic) has to be exact (quantum). That is why a crash results in nothing or it results in the only quantum action available--creation of nearly the same photonic energy that was absorbed. So at about a billion times a second (how often crashes occur), the energy from a photon is converted to potential energy inside a CO2 molecule and then back to photonic energy. So what causes the air to warm if not from Kinetic transfer? IR ends up taking a tortured path to space (it takes a few weeks). Pinballing between H2O and CO2 molecules until, a few weeks later, the energy finally escapes to space. But in the meantime, incoming irradiation doesn't stop, waiting for the IR to reach space. So IR accumulates for a while causing temperatures rise until a new balance is achieved (higher temperatures support higher levels of IR). Notes: (a) Air molecules can crash all they want but the net Kinetic Energy is conserved (doesn't change). (b) There are also momentum transfers between a photon and CO2 molecule but those are net zero (adding as often as subtracting). (c) A quantum collapse of a higher unstable state (resulting in a photon and stable state) doesn't require a crash. Decay can be spontaneous.

[@grindupBaker]

You are incorrect. It is measured from space and measurement trumps theory, especially a cheesy theory like that.

[@anon69_q]

This video is so well produced. Absolutely amazing video

[@arthurfoyt6727]

Great video; yet the atmosphere is not warming.

[@anon69_q]

@@arthurfoyt6727 there is so much evidence that contradicts that. Would you like me to walk you through it? I also noticed your other comment about IR and the glass box. It’s the comment where you provided the time stamp. I think you are mixing up or misunderstanding the transmission spectrum of soda lime glass. You are mistaken about IR not being able to pass through glass (+80% transmission up until the far end of middle infrared, where the transmission drops to about 30%). However, most of UVB and the majority of UVA can’t pass through glass (soda lime glass has high absorbance for UV). Maybe you confused UV and IR or Transmission and Absorption?

[@arthurfoyt6727]

@@anon69_q Plenty of data that shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere over decades, just surface warming. And there is a reason real greenhouses are glass; to trap infra red.

[@Khedronium]

Nicely explained! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@ACSReactions]

Nicely commented!

[@YodaWhat]

*Nice, but this explanation of Greenhouse Effect is still quite oversimplified.* For starters: The air Pressure also plays a role, as it influences air Density, and that changes with Altitude. In turn, air Temperature varies with Altitude, so the intensity of the Greenhouse Effect also varies with pressure/altitude. Then there is the *feedback effect* of the warmer air causing more water to evaporate, and water vapor is a much more potent Greenhouse Gas than CO2. The warming effect of extra water vapor is non-linear. In fact, it is exponential, as slightly warmer air causes much more water to evaporate, and that extra water vapor traps more heat, causing even more evaporation, and so on ... Creating a vicious circle of increased heating. Luckily though, the radiative Power of all these active molecules also increases. In fact, *radiative Power varies in proportion to the **_4th power_** of the Absolute temperature.* (Where 4th power means the square of the square or T^4.) Unfortunately, most of the extra heating happens in the lower atmosphere, where the Greenhouse Effect is also strongest, thus trapping more and more heat close to the ground. Nature's remedy for that problem is Rainstorms, Thunderstorms, and Hurricanes. They all carry the warm, humid air to higher altitudes, where expansion of the rising air causes much of the water vapor to condense, but now it is ABOVE most of the Greenhouse Effect and can therefore Radiate heat into outer space, where it belongs. But... (isn't there always another 'but'?) BUT the air rising from the warm and humid surface creates inflows of cooler and drier air aloft, which mixes with the rising air, dilutes it, and often kills the process. Otherwise, we would have constant rainstorms everywhere. *Bottom line: **_It's a complicated system of balanced effects_** and extra Carbon Dioxide throws off the balance.* @Reactions

[@pawepiszczaka4490]

Amazing job, what a great video!

[@llemS_U]

This is literally the first every video I've ever seen of this channel and I can say that yes I am glad he's wearing a longer shirt.

[@DavidRusso]

I couldn't hear a word he was saying over his distractingly long shirt.

[@evil7529]

Yeah but if it were shortet he would look like Brittany Speers. But not female.

[@j12997967]

Grow up, you two.

[@B_e_e_k_a_y]

​@j12997967 sorry guys, no having fun here when j12997967 is around

[@physics_enthusiast_Soorya]

Wow, very beautiful explination!! ❤️✨️ I hate "because I said so" too 😊

[@jaymayhoi]

damn! studied BSc physics and have been watching sci edu content for many years but have only understood this now. Such a clear fun video - thanks!

[@gert_kruger]

So... Water vapour does the same and there is a lot more water vapour. 🤔

[@QT5656]

Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long it gets rained out in a matter of days. Also the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is related to temperature. Atmospheric water vapour (moisture) has recently increased after the atmosphere was warmed by CO2. In general water vapour doesn't drive climate change like CO2 can but it provides a positive feedback.

[@ramontrevinosantoyo3303]

Hace 25 años entendí como la molécula de CO2 captura el calor de los rayos del sol que rebotan en el suelo de nuestro planeta. En este video explican de manera muy clara como entienden esta acción los científicos actuales.

[@DANGJOS]

Very nice! I just want to point out one thing. Vibrations of a molecule on their own can't raise the temperature. They have to transfer to the translational motion of the gas molecules in order to raise their temperature, probably through collisions.

[@madansharma2700]

Did I miss something? I understood that methane with virtually no dipole moment is worse than carbon dioxide as hren house gas. So did you explain that somewhere in the video? If not please make another video.

[@redshift3]

I am not a chemist, but considering how CO2 molecular vibrations can make it assymetric and therefore transiently dipolar, similarly vibrations of the CH4 molecule probably induce assymetry and dipolarity. Indeed, there are many more ways that such assymetry can occur in CH4 because it has more components to vibrate than CO2

[@abdelaziz6806]

Thanks well explained well understood

[@Archana-x9b8h]

Thish is amazing contact 🎉🎉 thank you 🎉 i am from India

[@JWentu]

This explanation was absolutely amazing, thanks!

[@ramblinevilmushroom]

great special effects lmao!

[@gglez6892]

Wow, for years I've tried to understand the greenhouse effect and global warming. I heard about it in primary school all the way to college, yet, I never understood as I understand it now after watching your video. So, thank you. And you know, that last example with the nuclear bomb was just jaw dropping, and perfectly reflects how crucial action on carbon emissions is.

[@stofjes4204]

@@seanleith5312 Fact 5: you are a lier. Watervapour only stays a few days in the atmosphere unlike co2. Warmer air lifts off with watervapour (aerosols) to form clouds and finally transforms to snow or rain or hail. Watervapour is an temporary greenhouse so there will be no effect for climate change.

[@engjds]

Well, I saw it and I see what he's saying, but I see many holes in that argument, can't you?

[@engjds]

@@stofjes4204 I felt it was just pushing an agenda, I get what he's saying, but it doesnt make any sense, he's making out this is some regenerative action akin to a lasers cavity, sounds like BS to me.

[@gavinminion8515]

@@seanleith5312 Fact's 1 and 2 - Correct. Fact 3 - Incorrect (Debunked in this video). Fact 4 - not a fact, just a misspelled accusation levelled without the support of evidence.

[@MrRadbadger]

@@seanleith5312 Sure dude.. If you actually studied like presenter has, you would understand that it's water vapor that is the greenhouse gas, and water is continually moving between it's 3 phases. So what's one of the main drivers of heating that causes water to evaporate? CO2 temperature forcing.. But seriously, why should we believe you over this guy, or any climate scientist for that matter?

[@hoon_sol]

I don't think it's inaccurate to say that it acts as a blanket even when you account for all of this, because it's essentially trapping thermal energy that would otherwise radiate outwards; but it's certainly a great and thorough explanation regardless.

[@glennmartin6492]

I've told deniers it's quite easy to disprove global warming. Just show how a CO2 molecule can see a photon coming and duck out of the way.

[@glennmartin6492]

Who on earth thinks that energy is created in the atmosphere? It's energy being absorbed by the atmosphere that's the problem.@@davyjones9917

[@johnmckeon9794]

For explanation 10/10. For good natured humour 10/10. Thank you. 🙂

[@redspinner]

Come on. Complete BS. Things don't working like that.

[@connerdingus]

actually, things do working like that

[@The_Daliban]

Keeping my attention with constant match cuts definitely worked. Thanks for the phenomenal video

[@Silver_Brush]

I love the editing

[@LeiDuGodHamsterOfDune]

We are happier with the longer shirt.

[@ronkirk5099]

I guess methane has more vibration modes to cause the dipole effect so it absorbs more IR energy? Is this what causes it to be a more intense greenhouse gas? I think some of us would like a short video on how these other greenhouse gases such a methane, CFC and HFCS differ from CO2. Thanks for your great chemistry videos. Very informative.

[@SmartPorter]

Amazing episode. Funny and informative.

[@hunter_69_69]

This is amazing content. Just shows how Physical Chemistry applies to our day-to-day life, like meteorology.

[@ACSReactions]

Hey thanks--we appreciate it.

[@JaxesGame]

​@@ACSReactions Extremely interesting thank you.👍 🤔 I was wondering if you would do a video on the difference between methane and carbon dioxide🤔 monoxide? I've heard methane is worse.

[@ColonelFredPuntridge]

Physical chemistry is _much_ more applicable to ordinary life than meteorology! Meteorology only explains the weather and how we predict it. Physical chemistry explains why things are the colors they are, and why some materials are conductors of heat or electricity while others are not, and why some materials are hard, or soft, or brittle, or tough, or translucent, or transparent. Everything you see, and the fact that you see at all, are results of physical chemistry.

[@hunter_69_69]

@@ColonelFredPuntridge Yep. I took biophysical chemistry in undergrad. Possibly my all-out favorite class. Water's high heat capacity (due to it's molecular geometry) explains why it's the "universal solvent," standard state delta G's explain why ligands always bind to the right biopolymers, kinetics applies to enzyme catalysis, the list goes on and on.

[@babybirdhome]

@@JaxesGame’ll have to wait for the video, but the one thing I do know about methane that explains part of why it’s so bad is that when methane breaks down molecularly, it _becomes_ carbon dioxide, which is one of the reasons it’s so bad. It effectively does “double damage” because of that, although it isn’t numerically double, it’s several multiples more than double. One of the other problems with methane is that most of it on earth is actually frozen underground where it’s not doing anything. But as global warming increases, more of that frozen methane thaws out and eventually becomes a gas that goes into the atmosphere where it first acts as a greenhouse gas for a while, and then eventually breaks down into even more CO2, adding more heat to the atmosphere, causing more methane to thaw and become a gas and then become even more CO2. It’s an extremely detrimental process.

[@LuinTathren]

I love your videos! You guys rock! Or is it vibrate. You guys vibrate!

[@awkweird_panda]

😂😂

[@ColonelFredPuntridge]

Very clear, except for the basics of how a molecule absorbs infra-red light, and no one can explain that without sounding like psychobabble, because it's quantum mechanics. So you get a pass, especially as you apologized for "because I said so". Very nicely done!

[@davidpotter3717]

I really loved this video, it has helped me to better understand the underlying science of climate change. There are still questions that I have, but this video has helped me a lot. One question that I would like to be answered is whether the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will ever reach a point that the greenhouse effect becomes saturated. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 to the atmosphere makes no difference?

[@richardseymour7162]

In a word: No. At the current level of CO2 (420 ppm), infrared light can travel about (let's say) 10 meters before it hits a CO2 molecule. If we double the concentration (840), that distance is cut in half. Keep doubling and we keep halving. At 99% CO2, there's still some distance the light could go before hitting a molecule. So by that simple measure, you're still not fully saturated.

[@davidpotter3717]

@@richardseymour7162 Thanks Richard. One of the arguments climate science deniers use is that the level of CO2 is such that it now makes no difference if we add more CO2 as it will not have any effect, due to its being at saturation point. I have seen some arguments refuting this claim, but I have not really been able to quite get my head around them. For example, it is stated that the upper layer of CO2 gets higher as more is pumped into the atmosphere, and the consequent lower temperature at this level means that heat can not be radiated away into space so quickly. I am sure this is probably true, but my level of thermodynamics knowledge is not quite sufficient for me to appreciate this explanation. The argument that you have given is the most easily understood one I have seen and I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my question.

[@denzilpenbirthy5028]

Davidpotter3717. I think yes, there must be, simply because if there wasn't, back in the past , especially Cambrian times when the CO2 was nearly 6000 ppm the earth would have been awfully hot, and this was a time when according to scientists there was an explosion of life . Think about it, if we have approx a 1c increase in temp caused by an increase of 150ppm, imagine if it increased 40 times that?

[@QT5656]

​@@denzilpenbirthy5028 Millions of years ago in the Cambrian the Sun was less powerful. Therefore, it was hotter than today but not as much as one would expect given the CO2 levels. Also that "explosion of life" occurred in the sea and mainly among invertebrates. Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures continue to rise. The suggestion of saturation is at best wishful thinking.

[@QT5656]

@@denzilpenbirthy5028 The fact you won't be losing sleep worrying about it is irrelevant. Particularly, as are you clearly have some major gaps in your understanding (or are intentionally posting nonsense gish gallops in bad faith). The "explosion of life" you're talking about was over 500 million of years ago when there almost no life on land let alone humans. CO2 levels are over twice as high as the lowest they've ever been so... no, not close to the "lowest they've ever been": 180 ppm vs 419 ppm. Yes, we live in an ice age. Many of the alpine glaciers are crucial sources of fresh water for many major cities and farming communities. Scientists have studied the glacial and interglacial cycles in great detail. Scientists have studied how they are related to the orientation (or wobble) of the Earth that change Solar irradiance slightly. Given that we know the current orientation of the Earth and the timing of previous cycles we know that we are not due to come out of the current ice age for another 7000 years. It should not currently be warming. CO2 has followed temperature in the past at certain points during the orbital cycles. However, again we know the current orientation of the Earth and it cannot explain the current increase in CO2. The recent upward spike in CO2 is not due to extra volcanic activity either (see e.g. Gerlach 2011). The recent upward spike in CO2 is due human activity. We know this because: 1, the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere fits with estimates of how much fuel we burn, 2, satellites and ground stations can measure CO2 due to dimming and they find the greatest current sources of hotspots are cities, industrial areas etc., 3, the isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 is getting lighter (more C12, as you would expect from burning fossil fuels, not more C13 as you would expect if the source was volcanos or weathering). It is true some increase in temperature and CO2 can be beneficial for some commercial plants and crops. However, increase in temperature and CO2 can also lead to increases in pests and weeds which are much harder to control outside a greenhouse. Moreover, plants don't just need CO2. They also need fresh water and appropriate topsoil. Both these things are likely to be less available in a warmer world. Moreover, global warming causes climate change not simply warming. It reduces long term regional predictability which has been necessary for growing the correct crops in the correct places for centuries. There is already evidence that shows the speed and extent of climate change is having a negative impact on some agriculture and broader ecosystems. Here are some sources if you actually care about evidence and facts: - Gerlach, T., 2011. Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(24), pp.201-202. - Hausfather, et al. 2020. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(1), p.e2019GL085378. - Lacis et al. 2010. Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330: 356-359. - Osman et al. 2021. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature, 599(7884), pp.239-244. - Rae, J.W., Zhang, Y.G., Liu, X., Foster, G.L., Stoll, H.M. and Whiteford, R.D., 2021. Atmospheric CO2 over the past 66 million years from marine archives. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 49, pp.609-641. - Supran et al. 2023. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), p.eabk0063. - Weyhenmeyer et al. 2016. Sensitivity of freshwaters to browning in response to future climate change. Climatic Change, 134, 225-239. - Winkler et al. 2021. Slowdown of the greening trend in natural vegetation with further rise in atmospheric CO2. Biogeosciences, 18(17), 4985-5010.

[@fractalnomics]

Incomplete 1) If CO2 is a conduit 10:00, how is it that this property does not show up in reality and have a special utility. And what about CO2 welding: "The temperatures for an arc under pure CO2 shielding gas, ...at approximately 8000-9000 K." How can that be? Pure CO2 at that temperature, a conduit? It would blow the place apart with the energy you claimed. 2)In the operation of a N2-CO2 Laser, the N2 is first excited to excite the CO2 modes? Isn't that a contradiction to your claims? Wtf! 3) The modes and temperature of the molecule of H2O are all detected , also! by modern Raman Laser-based spectrometer, as are the single modes of N2 and O2, as well as 1338cm-1 of CO2, 2 from CH4 and 2 from N2O. Raman spectrometers are complementary instruments to the IR spectrometer. They, the gases, all absorb, there are just different instruments to measure them.

[@0RogueZero]

Nice, brings back memories. Physical chemistry was the end of many students at our faculty, but is the most interesting (opinions will differ ^^).

[@fractalnomics]

1:00 Is that true? They don't conduct either. How do they get their heat energy without radiating (or conducting)? Should they go to absolute zero.

[@grindupBaker]

The explanation is rubbish. e.g. at 1:09 "carbon dioxide is able to absorb the Sun's energy" is true but it's irrelevant because CO2 absorbs a negligible amount of the Sun's energy and the warming effect is entirely due to CO2 absorbing the Earth's energy (wavelengths 13.0-17.0 microns) and NOT the Sun's energy. Your question can't be answered because you need to get a basic science education first.

[@VeniVidiVelcro]

This video is just pure quality

[@hanfman1951]

Something that should be also discussed and you already said it but not that clearly when the CO2 heats up the lower part of the atmosphere (CO2 is heavier than air) and by lower I mean about 10 km or so then the higher part of the atmosphere must get cooler. This is very important because the earth does not consume energy it always wants to stay in an equilibrium. The only thing that changes is the entropy! And this has already been proven but I can't find the article if someone knows it please share.

[@DANGJOS]

Are you suggesting that the total energy on Earth doesn't change? I doubt that because the stratosphere has a much lower mass than the troposphere, so the only way the total energy would remain equal is if the stratosphere decreased in temperature much more than the troposphere warms.

[@specialkonacid6574]

A greenhouse doesn't work the way it does because the glass absorbs energy

[@grindupBaker]

So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: Units 1 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs (1/3rd in the air, 2/3rds in the surface) 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere 1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere 0.92 Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.44 Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface (Note: There's 0.08 LWR straight from the surface to space because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths) So there's the balance with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.44 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.18, then there'd still be 2.36 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.18 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.44 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.44 leakage changes to 0.91:1.45 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

this was the best educational video ive ever seen. you managed to entertain me but also provide an extremely simple to understand explanation as someone who struggles with math. thank you

[@DH-bf9xb]

Mad props to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy! It explains so much. Also, your videos are great.

[@AngelRodriguez-qg5zq]

The last 50 seconds had my brain vibrating like a CO2 molecule hit by a photon thaks!

[@kenbrady119]

Well done (no pun intended)! Next question: why is CH4 a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2?

[@sidvicious6505]

Because methane reacts at wavelengths not already saturated. It is also less dense and reaches higher altitudes and stays for a lengthy period of time.

[@sasquatch-7634]

What would be the perfect percentage of co2 in the atmosphere? What was the percentage of co2 100 and 1000 years ago?

[@mohebalikalani2115]

thank you, I have new innovation, grab energy and pure water and fertilizer from sea

[@liveleigh]

Still, the ending promotes "energy is heat" He caclulate the amount of energy distributed over the US, and the inference is all that energy is heat?.

[@davidjuliesmiththomas7983]

Misleading video. Not sure why. Maybe the guy can't do the radiative transfer calcs or maybe he just wanted to exaggerate the effect of rising CO2. Will Happer is better qualified on this topic and he has a different view to this chap.

[@CS-gg5hx]

Right off the bat you say carbon dioxide is able to absorb the suns heat energy. While this is a very basic explanation, carbon dioxide actually absorbs infrared energy from the surface of the Earth. Then in the end, you states simply that carbon dioxide has gone up so the temperature has gone up. You do know that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and absorption are not on a linear scale, right?

[@MrSurferDoug]

Humanity uses 20 T Watts (20 T J/S) interesting they are about the same as the added energy to the earth by the sun due to the increase in CO2 emissions. Humanity uses an estimated 565.6 exajoules of energy in a year. In 2020, humanity used an estimated 443.1 exajoules of fossil fuel energy The estimated total amount of fossil fuels on Earth is 49,023 exajoules.

[@singingway]

Is the basement is the only place you are allowed to put up a whiteboard?