Radiative Forcings & Human Contribution to Global Warming

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

great lecture! I already knew the majority of the information presented but did learn a couple of new things which is always awesome. 2 years late to this but I needed to tell you that you are an excellent educator and communicator, this was seriously so good.

[@egonvickerius8984]

this explanation is not valid as it doesn't count for the heat transport by convection in the athmospere. Your model needs to be updated so the eartth and the athmospere is in contact and balance with eachother. Same with the grean house gases and the athmospere. You will find that the heat radiation is extreamly small at the earth and only to be important near space where the pressure is werry low. At the surface the heat transportstion is made by convection and in space it is radiation.

[@mplaw77]

Slaying the Sky Dragon March 1912 report in the magazine Popular Mechanics titled, “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate..." "In reality, however, the intensity of an object's emission is a signal of its temperature. Sending that signal out and having it return does not change the signal. In other words, if the signal emitted by a 100 degree body is directed back to it, the body “reads” a 100 degree signal and responds accordingly, i.e, its temperature remains the same. This is how the reflective coating in a thermos helps keep hot coffee hot. The light an object emits is a temperature signal. The reflective coating in a thermos serves to expose hot coffee to its own emission, which thereby sustains its temperature. Doubling-back the coffee's signal doesn't amplify the signal; it does not and can not make the coffee hotter. In sum, a constant-irradiance earth model is nothing but a constant temperature model. Although blocking its temperature signal (its emission) is widely believed to raise its temperature, this is not the case. A constant-irradiance model is thus unable to demonstrate the mechanism of a greenhouse effect ..." O'Sullivan, John; Schreuder, Hans; Johnson, Claes; Ball, Tim; Anderson, Charles; Siddons, Alan; Olson, Joseph A.; Hertzberg, Martin. Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. www.barnesandnoble.com/w/slaying-the-sky-dragon-john-osullivan/1030711877

[@scribblescrabble3185]

except, the earth sits between a source of irradiance, the sun, and the 3K-void of the universe. So, not a insulated thermos coffee mug.

[@tonyhladun9081]

A beautiful explanation of the fallacy of small data sets. Two cars are traveling down the highway and you watch them for a few miles. They are travelling at the same speed so you conclude they are 100% correlated. Obviously they are not, they just happen to be travelling at the same speed at that time...let's call one CO2 and the other temperature. As Joni said "clouds get in the way".

[@davelowe1977]

This is a kindergarten understanding of climate and yet he's so certain about it.

[@glenndavis4452]

If you honestly believe CO2 has some, obviously quite special, property to increase heat energy in thousands of times it’s mass, put it to work doing that. 50% CO2, 50% nitrogen, and the radiative forcing input of say the watts per square centimeter of a damn hair dryer element. Into a polished aluminum (reflects IR ) radiator type heat exchanger. According to the “science” the CO2 will only have to force one other molecule. AND will thermally radiate harmonically, preventing (at least) the other CO2 molecules from losing heat by thermal radiation. If not, as speculated, increasing the temperature of same. This would easily be a billion dollar patent in today’s energy environment. A super high efficiency electric home heater, far superior to trying to just apply the watt energy directly to home air. Super heat the CO2 first, exactly the same way it heats our planet, and then transfer that heat to home air. If you are anywhere close to being right, that is exactly what will happen, except the CO2 only has to force one times it’s mass, not the thousands of times it has to in nature. For some reason (?), 45 years of climate change science hysteria has not been able to productively engage the planet changing energy increase of CO2. Maybe this science channel can interest a real scientist in a multimillion dollar patent ????

[@real_pattern]

read an atmospheric physics textbook lmao.

[@glenndavis4452]

@@real_pattern I have listened to multiple PhDs who can prove zero to minimal effects from greenhouse gases. The fact is that atmospheric carbons ABSORB thermal radiation and convert it to heat energy. How much heat depending upon how hot of a temperature source. They do NOT block, trap, or otherwise build up heat energy beyond that. Period. This is in no way a special property, most of the molecules on the planet also do that. There is basically no way that the minute amounts of Co2 can gain enough heat energy from the weak radiation emitted by earth surface to warm our giant atmosphere. Atmospheric physics measures the pure watts and then converts them to pure degrees. Real degrees have to overcome the temperature inertia of tons of air to increase heat energy in the atmosphere. Period. There are so many flaws in the climate hysteria models I’m not even going to try and list them all here. Unless you are interested in finding out what they are.

[@real_pattern]

may the climate hysteria bless you.

[@glenndavis4452]

@@real_pattern 🙂🙂🙂

[@mplaw77]

Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect kzbin.info/www/bejne/hISYZp-Om5l_kM0si=M-RWMTzvsSNpEJ1c

[@davebrown6552]

LOL you totally ignore The Stefan Boltzmann laws Total radiative forcing from CO2 since 1850 Co2 has increased by 50% Insulating effect of CO2 per doubling 3.7W/m2 (using the IPCC estimate) half of that is about 2 w/M2. again using the IPCC estimate current surface radiation is 398 W/m2 so at the beginning of the industrial revolution it would be about 396W/m2 put those numbers into the Stefan Boltzmann equation surface temperature at the start of industrial revolution would be 15.932C compared to now 16.296C So the total climate temperature effect of CO2 is less than 0.5 degrees C. Your ignoring of the effects of the change in solar output is nonsense. the climate is controlled by the sun high solar 'activity' means lots of big black spots on the sun and the planet cools a bit. Low solar activity and there is more sunlight so the planet warms. This is easily demonstrated by seeing the negative correlation between sun spots and hurricane activity. hurricanes are powered by surface energy more sun spots less surface energy less hurricanes The planet's temperature is following the effects of the gleissberg cycle . we have just passed a minimum so the planet is warm the maximum the 1950's caused the planet to cool. the minimum in the 1920's was why the planet was warmer than today. (as measured on rural or oceanic thermometers, with out the contamination of the Urban heat island effect. The planet is going to be cooling for the next 20 to 30 years as sun spot activity increases again.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

oh boi ...

[@tombolo22]

This is great teaching, the analogies are very effective

[@mplaw77]

The Greenhouse Effect Reconsidered: From Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, Arrhenius, to Manabe & Dyson. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYHLYauXnJunatEsi=KA5BIkZoqThbYWwW

[@mplaw77]

Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect kzbin.info/www/bejne/hISYZp-Om5l_kM0si=M-RWMTzvsSNpEJ1c

[@mplaw77]

Exploring the Origin of the Greenhouse Effects 1.0 and 2.0 | Climate Physics Review 10 May 2022 kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHu5hIaepZyoo5Isi=kzHmJBrFPAV2g8Jw

[@mplaw77]

Slaying the Sky Dragon March 1912 report in the magazine Popular Mechanics titled, “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate..." "In reality, however, the intensity of an object's emission is a signal of its temperature. Sending that signal out and having it return does not change the signal. In other words, if the signal emitted by a 100 degree body is directed back to it, the body “reads” a 100 degree signal and responds accordingly, i.e, its temperature remains the same. This is how the reflective coating in a thermos helps keep hot coffee hot. The light an object emits is a temperature signal. The reflective coating in a thermos serves to expose hot coffee to its own emission, which thereby sustains its temperature. Doubling-back the coffee's signal doesn't amplify the signal; it does not and can not make the coffee hotter. In sum, a constant-irradiance earth model is nothing but a constant temperature model. Although blocking its temperature signal (its emission) is widely believed to raise its temperature, this is not the case. A constant-irradiance model is thus unable to demonstrate the mechanism of a greenhouse effect ..." O'Sullivan, John; Schreuder, Hans; Johnson, Claes; Ball, Tim; Anderson, Charles; Siddons, Alan; Olson, Joseph A.; Hertzberg, Martin. Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. www.barnesandnoble.com/w/slaying-the-sky-dragon-john-osullivan/1030711877

[@sandrocavali9810]

Never ever start a serious video citing Trump. That's the definition of not serious.

[@sponemspoonfilmseditor8418]

Blabla blablabla ... De toute façon flux anthropique l'Homme n'y a de toute façon AUCUNE RESPONSABILITÉ*