Why is our upper atmosphere cooling?

We've all heard about the warming of our atmosphere, but now we're being told it is cooling as well! How come? Apparently it's all to do with how the different layers of our atmosphere react to incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared light. Research now shows that cooling in the upper layers could be jeopardising satellite orbits and opening up a new ozone hole above the arctic. So what's going on??
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoff...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveath...
Center for Behavior and Climate.
climatechange....
Research Links
Simon Clark - Why the sun cannot be behind global warming
• Why the sun CANNOT be ...
Space Debris Animation
• Space debris: infamous...
Main paper - Santer et al
www.pnas.org/d...
Manabe and Wetherald
phys.org/news/...
Article in Yale Environment 360 by Fred Pearce
e360.yale.edu/...
GHG Gases shrinking the atmosphere
phys.org/news/...
iopscience.iop...
Arctic Ozone research paper
www.nature.com...
UN Montreal protocol video
• The Hole - A film on t...
Check out other KZbin Climate Communicators
zentouro: / zentouro
Climate Adam: / climateadam
Kurtis Baute: / scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand: / the100lh
Simon Clark: / simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner: / @sarahkarver
Rollie Williams / ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries: / jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate : / @ourchangingclimate
Engineering With Rosie / engineeringwithrosie
Ella Gilbert / drgilbz
Planet Proof / @planetproofofficial

[@justenoughtobedangerous8596]

Another brilliant video with the normal well placed degree of sarcasm and pessimism. Thank you

[@jrrarglblarg9241]

I’ve only recently discovered this channel and that mix was a big part of the draw.

[@InfoSponge101]

Bill gates plans to block out the sun. Canadian fires seems like the cheapest option or geoengineering

[@JustHaveaThink]

Glad you enjoyed it :-)

[@alanhat5252]

@@JustHaveaThink we definitely do :-)

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

This cretin traffickes in scare tactics. Disgusting.

[@ThatOpalGuy]

I appreciate the lack of ads and sponsorships. many thanks to you AND your supporters.

[@christinavuyk2026]

Seconded 😄

[@alanhat5252]

+1

[@HopefullyUnoptimistic]

As someone who semi-regularly contributes to the SponsorBlock database, I see no reason to bother here. No burying the lede, patreon info at the end where it belongs rather than randomly in the middle of the video, and even the debatable bit about simon's channel and book probably doesn't count as promotionla as it's 100% topical. There isn't even any audio or flashy junk with your patreon cut-in graphic. I have to applaud your integrity.

[@TG-rf2iu]

That’s why you get KZbin premium. It’ll change your life

[@ThatOpalGuy]

@@TG-rf2iu yeah, no, youtube makes enough money off of me without me wasting more money.

[@seakayakhongkong5424]

As always, love the tone and the facts.

[@grindupBaker]

What about the polish ? There's a high degree of polish .

[@grindupBaker]

On a sort-of related topic to this one I've come across a better resolution & focus GooglesTube video of calculated, from theory, Earth radiation FTIR power-flux spectra versus actual FTIR power-flux spectra measured since 1964 by the IRIS instruments on 7 Nimbus satellites (and newer instruments since) over the Sahara Desert, over the Mediterranean Sea and over Antarctica. Note the cute little stratospheric spike in the middle of the CO2 & O3 notches at their peak absorption, that's the stratospheric cooling effect of this video because the spike means more energy radiated to space and that's energy coming from the stratosphere. Notice how the "greenhouse effect" is backwards for Antarctica in winter. That's because the lapse rate is backwards because no sunshine to warm the ground (warm the ice) but warmer air is arriving high above from further north (the Polar Cell, Jet Streams and all that topic) and descending to warm the surface so there's lots of inverted air temperature which causes the "greenhouse effect" to work backwards there with increased "greenhouse gases" causing cooling there in winter. That is why Mister Thinks cartoon of the "greenhouse effect" and all such explanations everywhere are complete drivel. I know how the "greenhouse effect" works and it ISN'T that these molecules absorb radiation from the surface and then re-emit 50% of it back to the surface, it's completely different simple physics, it's that warmer things radiate more than cooler things (provided they've got enough of the infrared-active molecules to do it). Interesting stuff eh. It's at kzbin.info/www/bejne/qV7Ek2CQg72hkJo at 30:55 Edit, continuing on. So just hypothesize that "molecules absorb radiation from the surface and then re-emit 50% of it back to the surface" IS the correct physics for how the "greenhouse effect" works. OK then answer these 2 simple experimental questions and you'll find that you cannot. - It's known that the atmosphere absorbs ~78 w/m**2 of solar radiation and also ~80 w/m**2 of regular heat gets into the atmosphere from mostly the tropical ocean by H2O gas that evaporates at the surface then condensing, maybe freezing, higher up and giving out its vast latent heat to the air around. So then just how does all that huge heat at a power rate of ~158 w/m**2 EVER get out of the atmosphere ? I mean EXACTLY how ? What is the EXACT physics that gets that heat out of the atmosphere ? - There's a simple laboratory experiment you all know, a bottle of CO2 warms more than an identical bottle of air when both heated by the same lamp. The quality varies hugely but it's obvious that at least one of these is doing it well enough. Just why does the CO2 bottle warm more than the air bottle ? I mean EXACTLY why ? What is the EXACT physics that makes the CO2 bottle warm more ? "molecules absorb radiation then re-emit 50% of it back to where it came from" ?? Makes no sense at all does it ? ----------- That Mister Think cartoon and all descriptions "molecules absorb radiation then re-emit 50% of it back to where it came from" seen on all descriptions except Andrew Dessler and perhaps William Happer who's such a lazy, casual old slop that he contradicts himself as he babbles away so you don't know how he considers it to work unless you're a bloody telepath (I'm not) and all scientific Web sites I happened to see have this crap. No it isn't "molecules absorb radiation then re-emit 50% of it back to where it came from", it's "molecules absorb radiation" plus "molecules manufacture radiation" a completely different thing because temperature has no effect on the 1st explanation (the incorrect one) but it has every effect on the 2nd explanation (the correct one) because parcels of warmer matter manufacture more than parcels of colder matter don't they. That's why increased GHGs make the troposphere warmer and the stratosphere colder.

[@1lightheaded]

So since you are a climate researcher I would think you have published this in a peer reviewed paper . Your use of pejorative makes it appear that you are a KZbin genius who knows more than they do .There are a lot of commenters on you tube with this attitude

[@mallerenga]

Thank you very much for your great work and contribution with such good information, so important and so well explained. I have been trying for a long time to understand how it affects our activity in the highest layers of the atmosphere. When I see how fast the planet warms up, how ocean currents slow down, I always ask myself, is it possible that there is some emergency or rebalancing mechanism that allows the entry and transmission of extreme cold from outer space to earth? What could cause a "mini" glaciation if ocean currents slow down? I searched and found information about the increase in water vapor and the phenomenon of night clouds in the mesosphere. I try to understand if in some way it is possible to create a connection or transmission of the cold outside to the inside through the water molecules or other elements emitted by the human being towards the lowest layers of the atmosphere. Obviously, it would not be anything positive for the human being either because, as some predict, with the slowdown of ocean currents it could lead to an ice age where much of the northern hemisphere would remain under ice and snow. ciencia.nasa.gov/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic ttps://www.tiempo.com/ram/humedad-misteriosa-en-la-mesosfera-y-las-nubes-noctilucentes.html Thank you very much again for helping to better understand the operation of this wonderful ship in which we have had to travel.

[@simonlinser8286]

So are we turning earth in to Mars? Like... it's too hot, but it's also colder when it's not too hot... meaning... no rain ever...

[@macmcleod1188]

The cold is coming from destabilization of the high-speed winds that kept the cold air trapped on the poles. Also, when the cold polar air warms up even a few degrees, it expands and becomes unstable and sends to blobs of "hot" polar air (still well below zero) towards the equator.

[@bramvanduijn8086]

No the high atmosphere is cooling but that doesn't affect surface temperature. If it did it would be called low atmosphere cooling. Mars is cold because it lacks atmosphere, which was blown away over a very long time by the particles emitted by the sun pushing against the Martian atmosphere. That doesn't happen here because our planet's liquid iron core is spinning, generating a magnetic field that pushes most of these particles away. Mars's coldness is a result of planet core properties, not of atmosphere properties.

[@grindupBaker]

@simonlinser8286 The stratospheric "greenhouse gas (GHG)" cooling reduces the tropospheric GHG warming somewhat and I've seen a pictorial about CO2 doubled in a scientist internal Webinar that showed 4 or 5 expert physicist analyses with slight variation and each analysis showed separately the effect without any stratospheric cooling and the effect with stratospheric cooling. Obviously, the empirical formulae use the result with stratospheric cooling because it exists. These empirical formulae are: Table 1. Expressions for Calculating Radiative Forcing IPCC (2001) Constant Gas Radiative Forcing ΔF (W/m**2) α = 5.35 CO2 α * ln(C/Co) β = 0.036 CH4 β * (M **½ - Mo **½) - [f(M,No) - f(Mo,No)] ε = 0.12 N2O ε * (N **½ - No **½) - [f(Mo,N) - f(Mo,No)] λ = 0.25 CFC-11 λ * (X - Xo) ω = 0.32 CFC-12 ω * (X - Xo) The subscript "o" denotes the unperturbed (1750) global abundance f(M,N) = 0.47 * ln[1 + 2.01/10**5 * (M * N) ** 0.75 + 5.31/10**15 * M * (M * N)**1.52]

[@DisOcean8]

youtube is criminal for not giving me updates on any of your new uploads recently! absolute rubbish algorithm lately. regardless, thanks for the think, dave! Simon Clark is a gem of a scientist as well

[@goodquestion8064]

Haarp damaged the ionosphere? Geo engineering? Sun changes ?

[@grindupBaker]

Moronic Troll ? YES. Absolutely DEFINITELY

[@House_Stark]

If you think HAARP has the potential energy to change or damage the Ionosphere, i'd love to know what you've been smoking! I'd also love to know where you think that small facility manages to accumulate and store that much energy! Because it's astronomical!!!

[@andywilliams7989]

Those holes in the ozone layer are why the earth went flat again🤣🤣🤣

[@jeremygalloway1348]

I thought the hole in ozone layer is over southern Atlantic not Antarctica? Has it moved or expanded/migrated further south?

[@grindupBaker]

(It isn't really a hole). It's always been generally centred on the South Pole. I've never come across anything indicating it's been on the Atlantic rather than Pacific side. Animated pictorial of last 40 years at earthobservatory nasa gov / world-of-change / Ozone

[@rogerbarton1790]

Hats off for all the ploughing through reports that you do. I'd be reaching for the bottle after 5 minutes of starting to read one, although I'd watch videos on technical subjects all day long.

[@pwrighter]

Better keep that hat on of you’re in the northern hemisphere.

[@pixelfrenzy]

Who does all your motion graphics, Dave - is it you? I'm always impressed by the amount of work that must have gone into them.

[@laletemanolete]

My thoughts exactly. One can do so much with PowerPoint, but Dave's illustrations are out of the park!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Chris. I do them myself, yes. I use the Adobe Creative Suite, including Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere Pro.

[@laletemanolete]

@@JustHaveaThink daaaaaaamn!!!

[@pixelfrenzy]

@@JustHaveaThink Kudos! That's a lot of work. I guess you have the workflow down for things like papers on the table in 3D getting highlights etc... makes a big difference to the production values of your videos.

[@PascalHartig]

@@JustHaveaThink I'd love to get a behind the scenes look at some point. Maybe as a Patreon special?

[@redelf1968]

Your presentations are fantastic.

[@tinkertaylor4447]

I always love your videos but you ruined my day with this one 😊 god knows what surprises the earth has for us as a result of our great atmospheric experiment.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Sorry!

[@debbiehenri345]

Yes, with every video I'm left thinking - well, that's yet another one we have to worry about. But that only goes to demonstrate that we should all be fully on board with changing our ways and making greater efforts to lower our carbon footprint, with the help of our governments and more effort made by industry (which never seems to do a great deal very quickly). We just don't know what other 'unexpected effect' this planet is going to throw in our direction if we don't change, and there are potentially very many more 'unexpected effects' out there ready to pounce.

[@grindupBaker]

Not really a surprise except for you'all but Dessler & others think there's a sizeable "pattern effect" over maybe 300 years. It's another 0.8 degrees with NO HEATER REQUIRED. As oceans balance over 300 years the huge eastern Pacific cloud bank will reduce letting more tropical sunshine in.

[@MichaelRada-INDUSTRY50]

Dear David, thank you for the next interesting THINK. Let me correct one number, namely the volume of space debris in the orbit. According to NASA, there are 170.000 000 pcs till 10 cm, 750.000 10-30 centimeters and 80.000 + above 30 cm of size

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Michael.

[@jonathangold2087]

Appreciate all the new information you provide us with in your podcasts. You are bringing some much needed rationale to this relatively complex subject matter. In doing so, you are making it easier to get an understanding as to what is going on around us, day to day. Appreciate all your efforts, keep up the good work!

[@stringlarson1247]

I'd substitute 'relatively " with 'mind-numbingly' . :)

[@TheFRiNgEguitars]

Great presentation, How do we know CO2 and O3 depletion are connected, as a cause-effect, and not simply concurrent? Not that we should not be concerned and investigate, what is the mechanism?

[@bobgnarley1]

Interesting as always. You're doing a fantastic job Dave, very much appreciated!

[@beautifulgirl219]

How about a show on how we can band together and buy our politicians back from the fossil fuel industries that currently own them?

[@SandraBonney]

A novel idea

[@horst4439]

I tend trying to explain the colder Stratosphere maybe a little too simplistic, but more hands on. Try to imagine a sleeping bag, which keeps you warm even in extreme cold. There it's kind of a quality inidicator if it keeps being quite cold at the outside surface. This means most of the heat remains inside to your advantage. In this very case the advantage to be inside, where it gets _slighly_ too warm, appears to be quite limited.

[@madcow3417]

Let us re-introduce CFCs so that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic opens. This will balance out the hole in the ozone above the arctic so the earth doesn't become top heavy and fall over.

[@theactualbajmahal833]

You mean like when Captain Jack Sparrow had everyone run back and forth between starboard and port in order to capsize the Pearl back into the living world?

[@rogerbarton1790]

Brilliant - the two holes would induce a through-draft, washing all the CO2 out into space.

[@justmenotyou3151]

The earth is not flat so it will not "fall over". It is round so it will start to roll. 😊

[@UK75roger]

That's very funny! Thanks!

[@donmunro1231]

Earth rolling across the universe - blue ball, top pocket! 😂

[@paulmurgatroyd6372]

I do appreciate the love and reverence shown to the technologies of yesteryear. 🙂

[@paperburn]

Can your next video be about geo engineering and the injection of the lower level of troposphere up to the stratoshere for a global cooling effect.(not related to the cooling theory stipulated in this video.

[@alayneperrott9693]

Thanks for introducing this complex topic. A related topic under current discussion is: are we going to get more cold Arctic outbreaks caused by reversals of the circulation in the northern winter stratosphere?

[@UnskilledGrappler]

@@TheRealCheckmate How dare you

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

The process where one collision in space, leading to more debris and more collisions and eventually so many collisions that all the debris inhibits space flight... is called the Kessler syndrome.

[@debbiehenri345]

To be honest, I don't think that would be a bad thing - for there to be so much space debris caused by a cascade of multiple collisions that it literally 'imprisons' us on this planet. (Serves us right). It might focus more organisations/individuals and their money towards cleaning up the planet they all live on - instead of continuing with this dream of going off and inhabiting Mars. It's going to take centuries to clean up the mess we've made, and it's already getting much harder to do some of the restorative work - for instance: droughts, heatwaves and floods negatively affecting tree-planting efforts.

[@brianletter3545]

You write '"Research now shows that cooling in the upper layers could be jeopardising satellite orbits and opening up a new ozone hole above the arctic. So what's going on??" And just which satellites orbit in the 'upper atmosphere'? Somebody is pulling your leg! There are no 'satellite orbits' in the upper atmosphere! When any spacecraft enters the ''upper atmosphere'' it experiences rapidly increasing drag due to friction, just like a shooting star. By careful navigation this 'drag' can be controlled to avoid excessive heating, this enables the satellite (space capsule etc., etc.) to be returned to the surface without burning up. There are plenty of examples of uncontrolled return that killed those on board - Space Shuttle Columbia is one.

[@robertfallows1054]

Just another nail in the coffin I guess. I also believe that we have underestimated the coming effects of climate change and they will be here sooner than we thought. Grim!!

[@australien6611]

While we all sit back and watch

[@lorenzoventura7701]

First half a degree took a century to increase and now after just twenty years it is a whole degree warmer. It is plausible that we will cross the 1.5 threshold far sooner than 2040. Now I escape from reality, bye bye.

[@justmenotyou3151]

​@@lorenzoventura7701 We will probably hit it this year or next, being in an el nino year. Then the Temps will fall back a bit and we will then move into 1.5 degree territory permanently.

[@Campaigner82]

@@justmenotyou3151 Super El-Nino as well 😬

[@mikemellor759]

I’m grateful you provide these explanations although they are sometimes above my level!

[@manickn6819]

This was a more interesting video than your normal one with "game changers".

[@grindupBaker]

I've read through all the comments so can save much time for you Bert Scroggins the 1 bloke except me interested in the science rather than your money, when you browse past. The scientific objection definitely turns out to be that CO2 is such a tiny trace gas (apparently just 0.04% of some completely-random other fucking thing or other) that its warming effect is already totally saturated throughout the entire atmosphere and cannot possibly be increased at all. Hope this helps and saves you time ploughing through the manure (typo, I mean "comments") Bert.

[@louisdiedricks7110]

While having replaced CFC's with HFC's has had a restorative effect of ozone layer; it is important to note that CFC's still contribute approximately 3% of the damage to the ozone layer that CFC's had. Take this into account that until the 1970's, the industrialized nations of the world accounted for over 90% of CFC emissions. China and India combined accounted for less than 10% of CFC emissions. So today when you factor in billions of new people who have air conditioning and refrigeration; even though the refrigerant in use today is only 3% as destructive to the ozone as CFC's were, there is well over 10 times the amount of refrigerants in use today than in the 1970's.

[@w.o.jackson8432]

Good point, we need to prevent India and China from growing and using refrigeration to really solve this problem.

[@undernetjack]

What?! You mean Dupont's patent on refrigerant expired and they lobbied to have it labelled 'greenhouse gas' to keep other competitors from using it, all while selling it's 3 other 'new' chemicals they just got patents on. Capitalism NOT climate. Gullible much?

[@jaykanta4326]

@@undernetjack What a stupid conspiracy theory devoid of any evidence.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@undernetjack CFCs weren't labeled a GHG. They're not. There is massive amounts of research showing the exact mechanisms by which CFCs get to the upper atmosphere and bind to O3. JFC, how do you people manage daily life being this ignorant?

[@paulsnow]

@@jaykanta4326 Let’s take a look at the most extreme case: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Compared to carbon dioxide, CFCs can produce more than 10,000 times as much warming, pound for pound, once they are in the air. MIT News. I don't give links. You tube will ban me. You can google.

[@cht2162]

I've had 5 skin cancer surgeries in the last 3 years. Keep out of the direct sun as much as you can. Always wear a hat, shading your ears and wear polaroid or prescription sunglasses.

[@yeetyeet7070]

Great shoutout to Simon Clark

[@ryanreedgibson]

You're videos are so undervalued. It's one of the few reasons why I even come to YT.

[@duran9664]

Let earth be earth. 😒 Stop blaming humans for something humans have so little role on. 😒

[@h2opower]

It's going to be a tough battle doing away with the fossil fuel industry as they have gotten their tentacles into everything. They have managed to coop many educational systems around the world so they never teach the truth about science anymore and/or just leave a whole lot out of their curriculum. Trust me it's a sad day when you asked someone who just went through a science program taught at college they can't answer this simple question, "How does a plant break the bonds of the water molecules?" or, "Just how does a thunderstorm actually work?" You see once these questions are answered a whole new era of scientific discovery will take place shortly afterwards. But that new science will complete do away with the use of fossil fuel use and those whom have vested interest in seeing that that doesn't happen have made their move a long time ago.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

What you are advocating is denying 3rd world countries the cheap energy we've all had. You're a colonizer.

[@dc37009]

Yes, earth science programs specifically ! Where chem, phys, bio, and ecol all conspire to create the "woke" big picture (lol)! Nice reminder, I think stem vs the book burners; will create sufficient backlash to reinstate a science based curriculum.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@scottslotterbeck3796 Go away, lame denialist.

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

Hegemony comes before climate change.

[@babyloonbees7037]

Global warming causes global cooling. Uh, huh. At least Orwell got it right.

[@grindupBaker]

"Global warming causes global cooling". It certainly doesn't you moronic lying drive-by troll.

[@dalekrenegade2596]

Yes, yes you never had an original thought in your life.

[@waynewallace10]

While the northern hemisphere is heavily populated, I believe peak human density is somewhere near (but below) 30 degrees north and keeps reducing as you go further north. My question is what latitudes are being impacted by this new artic ozone hole? Do we need to warn folks living north of 45? 60? 75?

[@farmergiles1065]

From the circle he drew around the Arctic, it looks like something between 45 and 50 degrees.

[@waynewallace10]

@@farmergiles1065 hmmm... I live near 47, seems kind of close. But I expect there may be less impact near the edges compared to the middle.

[@farmergiles1065]

@@waynewallace10 I would expect so. But look carefully at the circle. The British Isles are all clearly within, and London is above 51 degrees latitude. Moreover, the west coast of the U.S. seems to have portions within it also. The Canadian border is at 49 degrees, and Portland Oregon is between 45 and 46 degrees. I think Spokane Washington (inland) is 47 degrees and a fraction. So it's only the northernmost strip of the US that would be inside, but most of Canada is definitely there. (Toronto is under 43 degrees; London, Ontario is slightly less than 43, so the Great Lakes section in southern Canada dips outside the circle, I think.) Paris, France and Vienna, Austria are definitely in, while Milan, Italy is on the line. Makes one think, doesn't it?

[@MrAwesomeBikerDude]

Good video, easy to follow, true. It's been April 1. already for 2023, but for next one do something similar but based on flat earth climate models.

[@grindupBaker]

Oh boy circa 1978 I heard CBC Radio program on Canada's conversion to metric time as part of the conversion from English to metric. It was really confusing with 10,000 new-seconds in an new-hour, 10 new-hours in a new-day 10 new-days in a new-week and 100 new-weeks in a new-year. Potential costs were horrendous. Outraged citizens phoned in in droves.

[@PaulWetStuff]

Great video! Clear concise with good references to contrarian falsehoods

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

people lie but sun doesn't CO2 still irrelevant

[@grahamb5343]

Ever closer to the end of the human race - good riddance. Thanks for the video

[@pjssjr]

Meanwhile, COP 28 will be headed by an oil company businessman! YAY!!

[@manoo422]

May as well, the other 27 did nothing about CO2 levels but they have launder $Trillions of tax payers money around the world achieving nothing...Its almost like its a complete scam....

[@DB-pm2vy]

😡🥺😳😣

[@manoo422]

@@DB-pm2vy Are you feeling conned? You should be...you have.

[@australien6611]

​@@manoo422conned about what?

[@Solstice261]

​@@australien6611You know, the event supposed to treat how the world is going to move away from fossil fuels and improve the environment having more representatives against the environment and phase out of fossil fuels than scientists, environmentalists and representatives of countries which are literally sinking and barely use fossil fuels in first place

[@rpower1401]

I just wanted a nice relaxing break video, instead discover a hole in the ozone layer is opening above my location! Monday's Suck! lol Great video other than that detail.

[@therealhellkitty5388]

I’m wondering if the ozone hole is related to the slowing of the thermohaline current. I was reading this morning that the slowing is much more apparent in the North Atlantic due to fresh water from Greenland. Seems to me that if the trade winds slow and there is greater open water above 5*N latitude, that’s got to impact something above as well as below.

[@grindupBaker]

"in the North Atlantic due to fresh water from Greenland". That's actually thought by the expert scientists to be incorrect. It's a common mistake being promulgated by the vast "Social Media" that now exists. The science on it isn't set in stone yet but the internal Webinars that I watch each week include 1 recent and a couple over the last few years I've forgotten that show by the analysis of measurements that the melt water from Greenland stays too close to Greenland to affect the places that dense AMOC water forms (1 at 75.00N, 0.00 E-W made famous by Peter Wadhams in his "Farewell to Ice". No, the scientists mostly think that AMOC slowing is caused by the increasing precipitation in the Arctic Ocean and on all the land that drains into the Arctic Ocean, plus perhaps the loss of all-year-round Arctic Ocean ice. Those things are what expert scientists think are mostly freshening the Greenland Sea & North Atlantic where the dense AMOC water forms.

[@robertrichard6107]

A new factor I became aware of is micro rubber particles in the northern hemisphere from vehicles landing on ice in Greenland increasing sunlight absorption according to an old Dorset/ Inuit type up there in Denmark territory that was in a YT presentation. He claims it is bigger factor then carbon, also melting Arctic Ocean ice.

[@projectpeace]

Hi Dave, thanks for having another think in the right direction. I've been interested in the solar protective influence of terpenes produced by boreal forests & marine phytoplankton. Apparently, about half of the forests & phytoplankton have been lost in the last seventy years. That means half the concentration of atmospheric aerosol terpenes. Since terpenes are known to possess antiviral, anti-fungal properties, it seems logical to theorize there may be some benefit from terpenes (which serve as cloud condensation nuclei) helping to purify Earth’s hydrology. Fewer trees & phytoplankton suggests that less terpenes, fewer cloud condensation nuclei, less solar refractive influence & less water purification. Do you have any insights into the biogenic influence of atmospheric aerosol terpenes? Cheers!

[@pseudonayme7717]

I came looking for an interesting comment rather than the trite, congratulatory comments that are all too prevalent in this comment section, and here you are.👍 It sounds like a very interesting idea and I'm sure there is merit to it, so kudos for bringing it up. I think It makes sense that preserving the natural world would be good for the natural world, and I'm sure there are a myriad of other details like this that are escaping our attention while we put all our efforts into the more obvious detrimental effects of CC.

[@PhilipX2030]

Thank you Dave for keeping us in the loop. My favorite channel

[@jockmoron]

There's nothing strange about stratospheric / high atmospheric cooling in a warming planet, in fact, it is a basic part of the whole global warming physics and chemistry. Imaging lying in bed at night. You have a lightweight duvet to cover you. But it's a cold night, and you add another duvet. The heat that would otherwise escape into your bedroom now remains under the covers due to the extra insulation stopping the heat moving fro the hotter to the colder (listen to Flanders and Swann's comic song on the laws of thermodynamics for an explanation) , but obviously the upper part of the duvet must be now be colder. . That's a bit simplistic, but an earth retaining heat must perforce be radiating less if the source of the heat remains the same. .

[@grindupBaker]

I retract that below. As I ponder your simple analogy I realize that it's closer to the actual physics than the incorrect physics given all over the internet including by Mister Think. Your analogy's good enough. - Incorrect physics: "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" absorb some surface radiation & re-emit it in some random direction so 50% goes back down where it came from, so less heads off to space. - Correct physics: "greenhouse gases" absorb some surface radiation and it's gone, converted to heat. "greenhouse gases" manufacture radiation proportional to their Kelvin**4. The Kelvin**4 at top of troposphere is less than at surface so less radiation heads up from troposphere than headed up from surface, so less heads off to space. ----------- A person with average & above brain functionality clearly sees that more GHGs in the stratosphere cause the stratosphere to radiate more to space, cooling it with "- Correct physics:" above but with "- Incorrect physics:" above it doesn't work because the increased GHGs in the stratosphere with "- Incorrect physics:" above returns more radiation back down (where it's all coming from) instead of sending it to space and causing cooling. The notion that it's sent down and warms below more and cools the stratosphere is obviously faulty logic because the radiation sent down had nowhere to go so must cause additional warming and additional warming must send more radiation up into the stratosphere so the stratosphere sends more radiation down but the air & surface below then send more radiation up, it balances and the stratosphere doesn't cool. -------------- *** BELOW HERE IS RETRACTED BY ME, FORGET IT *** That isn't why "greenhouse effect" warms Earth's troposphere & cools Earth's stratosphere. The reason is simple & obvious but explained incorrectly almost (but not quite) everywhere. The scientists & others who know that it's being explained incorrectly don't think that it matters because nobody much will ever understand it either way, and that's a valid POV isn't it ?surface radiation

[@one_field]

So... what is the actual effect, if the upper layers are colder than before? Apart from impact on satellites. Does the surface temperature get colder or warmer as a result? Is the denser atmosphere consequently more insulating and does it repel more stellar radiation? Or does it merely trap the heat inside? I think this video is a great Part 1 but it needs a Part 2... Thank you so much for making it!

[@jaykanta4326]

It validates the models that projected that with increased lower atmospheric warming from CO2, specifically, the upper troposphere would cool as a result of more IR wavelengths being trapped lower down.

[@one_field]

@@jaykanta4326 That doesn't actually answer the question... what is the impact of the cooler troposphere, after it occurs? The video covered how it occurs very nicely, but left the results of it after that pretty much to be guessed, except for the increased orbit of satellites.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@one_field Not much, just validation for the models, which means the earth is on a very difficult trajectory for us.

[@girowinters]

If it's anything like the effect of the hole in the ozone above the Antarctic -more cancer for us humans and more trouble for our fellow inhabitants of this fragile earth

[@bramvanduijn8086]

"Does the surface temperature get colder or warmer as a result?" both the warming of the surface and the cooling of the higher layers are the result of increased CO2 concentration. They're proof of what was predicted, it is not new information, just confirmed old information. So if you want to know what the result will be it is what was predicted what would happen with increased CO2 concentration: higher sea levels, less predictable weather, more desertification.

[@AisleEpe-oz8kf]

Has anyone tried to reseed the ozone? Are there any places where readings would add to the impetus for an attempt to do so? Sorry. I'm broke.

[@jemezname2259]

The cooling effect in the upper atmosphere was expected. The cause of global warming is a reduction in heat leaving the planet and going into space. That only happens if the upper atmosphere is cooler. If the upper atmosphere was hotter it would radiate more energy and the planet would cool. So upper atmosphere cooling was always the predicted result.

[@grindupBaker]

Yes !

[@06howea1]

The best video you've EVER made, 100%. Distinct lack of conjecture and opinion, just straight FACTS. That is what I like.

[@hitreset0291]

I must be... am... old as free-huck given I remember these punch card days shown all too well. Perhaps this is why I am so optimist about the eventual electrification of all that once ran on fossil fuels. A Big👍to all you EV champions. Bring it on!!!

[@barneymm2204]

I thought it was found to be thermospheric expansion due to the sun that brought down those Starlink satellites in January.

[@drchaffee]

The space weather community had warned about the effects of a geomagnetic storm, caused by the sun, which did puff up the thermosphere, which in turn subjected those Starlink satellites to atmospheric drag which brought them down. So, it was space weather interrupting an otherwise cooling thermosphere driven by climate change.

[@derelictor]

Dumb question, so how does the CO2 cools down the higher parts of the atmosphere and creates this huge contrast between the troposphere warming and stratosphere cooling?

[@grindupBaker]

I have a definite opinion on that, differing entirely from the standard explanations but there's an Energy Budget and THOSE physicists quietly agree with me. I'm not explaining it here, no audience.

[@markapplejohn4376]

Okay Dave, this week's episode is scary and depressing - Please follow up next week with something that gives us hope. We need the balance!! I watch every week so that we can better understand how we got here and where we are going as the human species...

[@globalwarming382]

I want to know the worst. Dont want to prepare for not so bad.

[@duran9664]

Neptune planet climate change is also our fault. 😒

[@grindupBaker]

The atmosphere loses its NET energy by means of LWR that is manufactured by all solids, all liquids and specific infrared-active "greenhouse gas (GHG)" in the atmosphere. They manufacture this radiation by picking up some combination of vibrations & rotations when they collide with other molecules (the solids and liquids mostly internally colliding). Then they "spontaneously thermally relax" and emit a photon. This is how the NET energy of 78(SWR)+80(H2O gas-liquid latent heat)+17(thermals)=175 w/m**2 (I've seen 188 elsewhere) gets out of the atmosphere. Obviously, the SWR is entirely one-way (no SWR departs the atmosphere), the H2O gas-liquid latent heat will be utterly-overwhelmingly one-way (there's some moisture can form on ice, snow or other cold surface but it must be sub-negligible compared with H2O gas pouring off the tropical ocean non stop) and thermals has a large up component and a large down to surface component (the deserts, which are heated mostly by tropical ocean, the ITCZ). If there were no decreasing temperature in troposphere then there'd be no "greenhouse effect" because the solids, liquids and infrared-active GHGs would emit the same up towards space as the surface emits up so they'd change nothing. In that case there would be 240.1 w/m**2 heading up from the surface at Earth's average temperature of 256.4K (-16.8 degrees) and 240.1 w/m**2 going into the surface from the solids, liquids and vast quantity of GHGs I've put in the atmosphere totally "saturated" in my example (and they would have zero effect on temperature, on Earth's heat loss) and there would be 240.1 w/m**2 heading upwards from the troposphere. The "240.1 w/m**2" and "-16.8 degrees" are just very good approximations for illustration and ignore the fact that ice & snow reflection would make a "Snowball Earth" (unrelated topic). So then, with no decreasing temperature in troposphere then the vast totally "saturated" GHGs I've put in the atmosphere would absorb >92% of the 240.1 w/m**2 up from the surface within ~300 metres of the the surface and this would have no effect whatsoever on the temperature in Earth's ecosphere because the troposphere would be sending upwards the exact same amount 240.1 w/m**2. However, there IS a tropospheric temperature lapse rate and therefore there IS a warming caused in the troposphere by its solids, liquids and infrared-active GHGs. The solids, liquids and infrared-active GHGs in the stratosphere cause MORE LWR to be sent to space, they are trying to COOL Earth because stratospheric temperature lapse rate is backwards.

[@thunderbearclaw]

Some 50 years ago we were told that the Ozone hole was a result of fluorocarbons in the atmosphere. So we replaced our coolants with non Fluorocarbon ones. Now we are being told that an apparently even bigger ozone hole is due to excess CO2 !

[@grindupBaker]

It's getting like darning socks for crying out loud !

[@hammerdon1962]

Well it's a good thing that I don't tune in for good news

[@ThatOpalGuy]

the earth is a complex mechanism that we dont fully understand.

[@stephenfanthorpe2708]

I agree , if the northern lights are caused by factor of a hole in the outer layer some how and that’s been going on for millennia how can we quantify

[@DB-pm2vy]

@@stephenfanthorpe2708 Well recently the northern lights were seen as far south as midlands UK. Usually they’re much further north. Is this because the ozone thinning has let the solar permeate a much bigger area? 🎉

[@jaykanta4326]

Argument from personal ignorance.

[@stephenfanthorpe2708]

@@DB-pm2vy its quite possible or that the levels of whatever causes the phenomena are higher so the opening is larger , it’s just as possible it’s a natural cycle we don’t understand

[@jaykanta4326]

@@stephenfanthorpe2708 Argument from ignorance is not a scientific argument.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

Just when you thought you could escape Climate Crisis by moving North...

[@peterbathum2775]

Thank you for info in a rational, understandable manner, as always. I fear the amount of humans who can't take in information they don't like or want to understand. They steadfastly reject science and still argue our current weather is just always changing, this "aint that different", insisting it hasn't a thing to do with fossil fuels, so they can keep doing things "just the same as daddy did". I ask if they are living with a drought, fire, flood, 200 year storm, or baking heat ?

[@razadaza9651]

Currently atmospheric concentrations of co2 are 0.04% of the total atmosphere.. given that plants do not take in co2 at night, but actually release co2 instead, what do you assume happens at night? Also what do you think might happen if the atmospheric concentration goes up to 0.08 percent?

[@stefanschleps8758]

Thank you. (This gets you my sub.) I think I have skin cancer now. Getting a check up asap! Undoubtedly due to over exposure to UV radiation over the last fifty years. I started warning people about Co2 pollution back in 1970 and no one even shrugged. That was the year of the First Earth Day. Apparently I wasn't alone in my concerns. I now have genuine concerns of my own. I worry Earth Day won't get to its hundredth birthday. This is your problem. Get involved, network, and don't trust the rich or the politicians to do a damn thing. It's up to you! Godspeed.

[@anthonymorris5084]

CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a harmless gas. We exhale it every second. Meanwhile fossil fuels have continuously produced carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas, and never at any time in history has anybody demanded we stop using them.

[@michaeljamesclarke]

Have you guys not heard about what happened 15th Jan ? 10% extra water plus lots of other stuff at 50km in an instant! Hint Tongan volcano!!!

[@grindupBaker]

"10% extra water plus lots of other stuff at 50km". Wow ! So almost 37 molecules then. I hope it doesn't all fall at once and drown me.

[@michaeljamesclarke]

@@grindupBaker Idiot! 10% of the total water in the ENTIRE atmosphere at that level of 50km!

[@xcuphill]

The rest of the ecosystem can't cover itself up to avoid more harmful UV radiation. If this results in lower agriculture, forest and ocean productivity it is another burden of increased CO2.

[@Flumstead]

Vegetation is doing fine. It continues to be a net absorber of CO2.

[@thomas-marx]

What's the carbon footprint of the Ukraine war and the canadian wildfire?

[@grindupBaker]

Depends on whether the Ruzzian corpses are cremated or left to rot naturally. They S.B. left to rot naturally because that's ecofriendly so it's a win win. Apparently wildfire smoke degrades organs somewhat throughout the body and not just the lungs. There is zero carbon footprint from wildfires of course because CO2 is wildfire fuel, that's the only place where wildfire fuel comes from. The Sun will turn the exact same CO2 back into sugars for burning over and over and over and over again until the CO2 is in rocks or the ocean, only an imbecile wouldn't have instantly realized this. Humans have literally increased wildfire fuel by 50% by taking wildfire fuel accumulated over a few million years out of the ground and burning it into the air so's the Sun can burn it again, and again, and again. Only an imbecile wouldn't have instantly realized this. Right ?

[@eliinthewolverinestate6729]

Insulation not only keeps stuff warm but also keeps stuff cool too. A cooler drier planet never goes good for humans. A warmer wetter brighter planet isn't good either. Remember we live in an ice age. Reduced food production and more energies needed come with a cooling planet. A cooler planet also means more plagues and diseases.

[@LuisAldamiz]

But it's not simple insulation, it's hothouse effect: the light gets in, bounces, loses energy, becomes heat (infrared) and then can't escape anymore (or rather much less, to be exact).

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

We live in an interglacial period of the ice age, that is, a warming period. That was even before the Industrial Age started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. A warming planet could also lead to reduced food production as desertification occurs in previously productive agricultural areas. Tropical plagues and diseases will also increase due to warming, as they are better adapted to warm conditions where previously it was too cold for them.

[@jaykanta4326]

Everything you said was a lie.

[@tikaanipippin]

@@LuisAldamiz But it does escape. The rate of escape is variable, and we do not understand or even know all the parameters that contribute to the variability.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@tikaanipippin - We (you and me) maybe don't understand every detail but metereologists and other scientists have been understanding those parameters quite well for many decades now and trying to explain that we have a huge problem to no avail (some pretend to listen but do essentially nothing, others are in denial). Now we face the catastrophe and it's surely too late already: famine, fires and general socio-political chaos are ensuing already. Maybe we'll survive but there's a big chance we don't. Maybe rats will inherit Earth from us, maybe it'll be bots.

[@faloo0]

You not know what you talking mr scientist. Mer 4x4 berk tur dur jerbs

[@Terminator484]

I appreciate that you duplicate any links in the description for stuff that might be added in the video as annotations. Annotations do NOT work in all browsers or with all settings, so it's great to have a backup.

[@AlexGullen]

Dave is missing the single biggest cause of current ozone depletion in the stratosphere. Nitrous Oxide.

[@manoo422]

It doesnt fit with the propaganda to blame EVERYTHING on CO2 levels...

[@jaykanta4326]

@@manoo422 Hello denialist, stop trolling.

[@manoo422]

@@jaykanta4326 You have your religion, I will stick to facts and science thanks.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@manoo422 Then bring some actual facts and science rather than your standard right-wing talking points. Cite a single paper.

[@TheLosamatic]

@@jaykanta4326 they can’t, they are all just petroleum trolls that don’t care that their people will someday piss on their graves!

[@richarddietrich4382]

Do you know of a website that helps Civil Society draw up emission reduction plans on a country by country basis ?

[@xenocampanoli815]

I wish someone could do some kinds of range estimates for ecosystem population supportability as the Earth's environment gets destroyed by our lack of responsible stewardship. If people could clearly see that, say our present will not have enough food at year x, or that by year y there may only be enough food on the planet and that in remote climes for say a few million people, or whatever the number is, that kind of presentation would have a better chance to affect policy and perspective than these trickles of reality we now are blessed with.

[@bennytleilax]

Thank you for doing this video about the demise of white people.

[@grindupBaker]

As I understand it only bald white people are for the high jump. Hairy white people fare well with the warming. It's to do with brainial radiation protection and rain-hail shock absorption. It's like having a permanent heavy-duty tin foil hat.

[@skihck]

Thank you for your work!

[@JustHaveaThink]

My pleasure! Thanks for your support. Much appreciated :-)

[@VidaMace]

Science needs to lo at haarp

[@grindupBaker]

Science needs to lo at bagpipes not haarps. The skirt-wearing hairy-legged freaks have you all too terrified to talk, but not me. Look at bagpipes Science.

[@ronkirk5099]

The link between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and O3 depletion in the Arctic is very troubling. We may have to follow Australia's example with our own Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide skin cancer avoidance campaign.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

everything is ok no reason to despair except when electricity cost triples

[@rickmalaschenko3046]

Your better off wearing a long sleeve shirt, hat , & staying out of the sun , never a fan sunscreen , it gives users a false sense of safety ,when going out in the sun. Fifteen minutes in the sun down here down under 🦘 will cook you ,,🍀

[@markusmaximus6636]

Wind turbines are worse for the environment and destroy the countryside. Battery storage for renewables alone would destroy the planet. The only way is nuclear.

[@justsayen2024]

A friend of mine asked me about climate change he was conservative. I said I don't know these are uncharted waters.

[@grindupBaker]

A friend of mine asked me about climate change he was a 1-legged 1-eyed hunchback with a listhp. I told him not to worry about just keep worrying about his usual stuff, where to buy 1-legged trousers and so on.

[@barneymm2204]

Are the Ozone holes following the migrating magnetic poles?

[@LuisAldamiz]

No.

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

Since ozone is diamagnetic, it seems that it should be the case.

[@bramvanduijn8086]

@@toughenupfluffy7294 That would only change the alignment of the ozone molecules, it wouldn't move them. You know how iron filings align with a magnetic field? Same thing.

[@rubensantos557]

we can't even comprehend what these changes can do to the stability of a planet, so many interactions that make up our climate (and has been so different in the past) the more we model and try to predict the more things we find!

[@iambiggus]

This reminds me of the Big Oil argument in the late 80's that " More CO2 means greener trees!". Trees can only take in so much CO2. It would be like somebody putting a mask on you, cranking forced compressed air, and demanding you breathe it in 'more'.

[@GerbenWulff]

Actually, plants can take up a lot more CO2 than we have in the atmosphere right now. In greenhouses they feed additional CO2 to increase yields. There is an experiment with the addition of CO2 in the jungle to increase carbon sequestration. And the planet is greening thanks to the additional CO2. It's not nearly enough to offset human emissions though.

[@grindupBaker]

iambiggus Actually, and not mentioned by GerbenWulff because he was busy eating Little Red Riding Hoods CO2 is wildfire fuel. Are you concerned about this new shrinkage effect of CO2 iambiggus ?

[@iambiggus]

@GerbenWulff You are arguing a point that has long been debunked, just FYI. Ecosystems are already showing signs of being over saturated. You don't need to do the research, NASA/Goddard has done it for you, so feel free to look it up.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Nuclear is the answer.

[@yancgc5098]

⁠@@iambiggus If the evidence is there then why not send the link? We are still not at a level of CO2 in the atmosphere where any plant has reached its saturation point. Some don’t see any benefit in the CO2 fertilization effect above 600 ppm, some above 800 ppm, and there are plants that can still see an increase in biomass and growth rate at 1,000 ppm. A greenhouse Earth is better for life and biodiversity than the icehouse Earth we’re living in now, and that’s a fact.

[@Talon771]

Random comment for channel interaction.

[@MrSmithwayne]

the cooling effect is going to have a HUGE impact on the polar vortex and we are likely to see increased deep temperature winter events from the vortex as even colder air gets pulled down during winter. As I have always said its not hot temperatures we need to worry about its extreme cold events that last longer and are more intense.

[@svenweihusen57]

This cooling doesn’t affect the vortex as there is quite a distinct border between troposphere and stratosphere. The vortex is a troposphere phenomenon and it will slow down due to the reduction in temperature difference between the poles and the equator.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Thought you were worried about global warming, lol.

[@tikaanipippin]

@@svenweihusen57 Perhaps you should read Simon Clark's 2017 thesis "Quasi-geostrophic influence of the polar stratosphere on the troposphere"

[@Solstice261]

I mean, heat is also worrying, I don't know if you've noticed but summers haven't been what one would call mild lately

[@tikaanipippin]

@@Solstice261 In the UK my memories went back to the mid 50s, when summers seemed short, and on the damp and coolish side, and they began to pick up in the mid-70s with 3 dry years culminating in 2 hot summers in 1975 and 1976. There seemed to be nothing too memorably warm until 1990, when warm summer started at the beginning of May and went on until a hot and summery September. Hot summers were what my parents and grandparents told us they remembered in the years when they were younger in the 1930s. but the UK has weather from primarily, Atlantic south westerlies, which tend to be carried on cyclonic depressions. Some years, like the current 2023, we have stable high pressure from May (following an uncomfortably long and cool spring following a chilly, but unremarkable winter, after several very mild winters overall). The UK has weather, and it can come primarily from 4 directions, the arctic, a thousand miles to the north or the Sahara desert a thousand miles to the south, or we border on an ocean where the wet prevailing winds come from and a continental mass that can give extreme dry cold in winter or extreme dry heat in summer. I suppose this is what our "temperate" climate means - as Queen put it: " Any way the wind blows..."

[@OperationDarkside]

I feel like you're getting more sarcastic video by video (or maybe my brain started to rot from the UV rays). Can't wait to see your videos in 2030.

[@grindupBaker]

It's because he's getting old. By 2030 he'll just be grumbling incoherently and saying "What ? What ?" to everybody.

[@loudmouthlibertarian1776]

The hole in the Ozone layer that was erroneously attributed to CFCs was actually caused by an Antarctic volcano on Deception Island that ejected mass quantities of sulphur-based compounds into the upper atmosphere, causing the Ozone depletion addressed by blaming the world's best refrigerant. Freon (dichloro-difluoro-methane) was invented in 1890 and put into full production in 1930. It was also used as propellants in hair spray and spray paint, and millions of tons of it were blasted into the atmosphere for forty years with no ill effects. Freon also weighs 4× what average air mix does, so if you had a balloon filled with it, it would tug DOWN around the same as a freshly-filled helium balloon would tug UP due to buoyancy. It's virtually impossible for a single molecule of freon (molecular weight 58) to "float above" the heaviest normal atmospheric element of Nitrogen (molecular weight 14). Besides, even *IF* all those beehive-sporting women spraying gallons of Aqua-Net into their hair WERE the cause of any such ozone depletion, the Ozone depletion would manifest in the latitudes where the release happened due to geostrophic banding. (Think the stripes on the planet Jupiter... North pole atmosphere CAN NOT MIX with equatorial atmosphere due to discrete convection zones!) End result? Air conditioners now must run at MUCH higher pressures than those using Freon, and run for much LONGER in order to cool the same amount. If it takes a modern A/C 15 minutes to cool down a room, then a Freon-based one could do it in 5 minutes, using about ¼ of the electricity needed to run today's pumps. (Higher-pressure pumps are more resistant to rotation than lower-pressure ones, requiring more energy, hence the 4× multiplier instead of the expected 3× multiplier based on run time alone.) Today, HVAC systems are among the largest consumers of electricity, all because we "banned" a very useful chemical that was blamed for volcanic ash effects in a different geostrophic zone. Who needs science? We have the FEELS!!! (The modern "Climate Doom Cult" mantra.)

[@petneb]

Very interesting, thanks.

[@jaykanta4326]

Oh look, another stupid comment devoid of scientific evidence.

[@chrishoff402]

The first Ozone 'hole' was detected over Norway less than a decade after the Ozone layer was discovered, before CFCs. After CFCs were banned naturally occuring Halide emmission from land and oceans were discovered. Still, what's really causing CO2 levels to rise AND Ozone depletion has nothing to do with human activity. Since the Carrington Event of 1859 the Earths magnetic field has been weakening. As that happens, more Solar and Cosmic radiation can get through to ground level. The increasing energy input from space is causing the oceans and land to emit more CO2, there's an extremely tight correlation between magnetic field loss and C02 rise. The Ozone layer is likewise being weakened by the additional solar and cosmic radiation inputting more energy to those Ozone depleting chemicals that are in the upper atmosphere. Nobody wants to talk about the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field and it's the real climate crisis we should be worried about and there's nothing we can do about it.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@chrishoff402 Citations required.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@chrishoff402 How did I know you were a Suspicious0bservers fan?

[@raysilver2b]

Ref C02 150ppm 300 ppm 600ppm, at 250 ppm begin to die. 150ppm plants and everything else dies. Before the Industrial Revolution we got down to 280 ppm. 🥵140 million years ago CO2 was 2500 ppm since that time trend has been downwards. It could be argued did the Industrial Revolution has saved life on Earth.

[@ab-td7gq]

Can you make a video for people to have a think about their consumption of animal products explaining the impact it has on the climate as well as the environment?

[@yourcrazybear]

Good luck with trying to convince everyone of a mystical climate crisis.

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

And rice cultivation, which generates more greenhouse gases than pork, poultry, lamb, mutton and dairy production.

[@ab-td7gq]

@@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo Not even close.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@ab-td7gq Has someone done an analysis of rice cultivation's effect on GHG? I would expect so. Do you have a link?

[@joewentworth7856]

Food and climate change by sl bridle worth a read. Covering meat cheese milk fruit veg and rice.

[@kurbads74]

It can't possibly be +10°C 110km up in a sky. If that was a case, they could grow broccoli on a windowsill of the ISS. On the outside.

[@ChannelScottify]

Coal is just stored solar power. Beautiful, clean coal.

[@TheGreatStKat]

try to think

[@LuisAldamiz]

It is but burning it all at once is a very bad idea.

[@Sekir80]

I love that reference!

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

There's nothing clean about coal, although some might say it's beautiful.

[@Sekir80]

@@toughenupfluffy7294 A couple weeks back I'v seen a guy do some tricky stuff with it and it made them really beautiful. I think it was styropyro, but I don't wanna link the video because youtube tends to eat those comments that contains a link.

[@kimlibera663]

The exosphere is above the thermosphere.

[@grindupBaker]

Mister Think: Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect). ------ So I figure how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen: - LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 - LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation). The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent). The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent). ------ That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant). ------------- So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.

[@HistoricalStoriesoftheBi-qm3te]

Dave. You know i enjoy your stuff. You explain well and carry an important message. And i get annoyed by fear mongering. So please keep that at a minimum level. In gona give an example. A: skin cancer comes in various forms. Melanoma used to be very problematic. It is less problematic these days. It is also accepted that sunlight is not the couse for it. So that's one scary fact you can reduce. B. Space debris. What's the big deal? C. There was never a c. You do good work and i like you personally... Even though i never have much to say about anything. Simon (i don't know what mom was thinking)

[@terencefield3204]

Me auntie fly tipped a fridge a while ago. Naughty naughty.I fink that was the course ov yt?

[@grindupBaker]

After I emigrated to Canada I learned my baby sister's husband buried my old James 250 cc bike in the back garden in London along with their mattress so if anybody needs a nice little bike cheap, or a mattress, let me know and I'll inform where to dig in East Acton.

[@terencefield3204]

@@grindupBaker You left East Acton for Canada! You must have been maaaad!

[@bedardpelchat]

Are we domed or are we doomed? After the Montreal Protocol (which was an incredible feat in itself) the production of CFC moved from industrial niche of the north to the south. I'm not sure we're keeping track of the continuous production of CFC worldwide.

[@steveberkson3873]

Excellent,informative,rundown(or up 😋) ~ like to see a piece on other factors like geoengineering and its effects.

[@48Ballen]

How do we increase CO2 such that the problem of world hunger is solved? I know plant life dies if the CO2 levels decrease much below 150PPM, but what level of CO2 is required to increase plant growth such that we have an abundance and starvation ceases to exist????

[@stephenduncan8292]

A complicated 'addendum' to the large body of climate science. Having a small, improved grasp of received orthodoxy - given personal experience of LOW interest in discussing the basic mechanics of human/CO2-induced warming - I feel pessimistic (if called upon/challenged to argue the case-in-general our planet IS hotting-up) - another layer of complexity would require an 'amateur lecture' - never mind succeeding in a keen one-on-one !

[@SageRosemaryTime]

This increased my understanding . Thank You .

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

Loved the video, but they wouldn't have been valve driven computers. The introduction of semi conductor occurred in the 50s with International Business Machines selling mainframes throughout the 60s

[@nicholasmills6489]

I’ve been looking at stratospheric cooling. They say there is a correlation with co2 levels. But stratosphere cooling would also occur if our atmosphere was actually cooling. Let me explain. We have removed coolants from the atmosphere which allow warming of land and ocean. In urban heat island zones, there is significant warming and this is affecting significantly our temperature record. Maybe the urban heat island effect and the reduced coolants have affected local temperature to cities so much that distorted temp reading that they no longer reflect actual temperature. To measure the ground temperature is so much harder than measuring stratosphere temp. But our knowledge on stratosphere temp is limited, there is no proxy. If our urban island effect is distorting temps by 1-2.8 degrees in some cases then the warming effect may not be what they say. Urban heat island can add 1.9 to 2.8 degrees c to a temp. It’s not the 10% they say it is.

[@frasercrone3838]

Slip -slop -slap------- Slip on a sun shirt slop on sunscreen and slap on a hat, The widely played skin cancer ad campaign started in Australia back in the 1980s. Sounds like it might get a rerun up north in the future. Welcome to our nightmare.