Why the sun CANNOT be behind global warming

[@arnspyarchi6040]

Can we appreciate the effort put into getting this close to the sun just to measure it's temperature? That's some dedication

[@joaquimbarbosa896]

Man really traveled 3 plannets to make 1 video

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

@@joaquimbarbosa896 Must be really expensive to have all that travel budget.

[@stevenlubick2689]

Very dedicated

[@narnigrin]

YUP

[@420styletomatoes6]

@@dillonkeller4477 sarcasm is lost on some people, it's ok sarcasm can be tricky at first.

[@ReloadedProductions]

Starting a petition to changing “computer science” the “harnessing the demons in electrified sand”. That one killed me 😂

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

I want to change my job title from "Software Engineer" to "Sand Demon Wrangler"!

[@mskiptr]

Just make that _daemons_ and it'll be technically correct lol

[@Teth47]

Runes inscribed invisibly onto imbued stones to direct the flow of an ever-present field of energy to suit our purposes. And people say shit like "I wish magic were real."

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

@@Teth47 Inscribed with light, no less! In a design beyond the comprehension of man!

[@DASLAKILL]

Or Garbage In Garbage Out Man

[@yuvalne]

Holy cow Simon, not only was this video super education, but the humour was absolutely top-notch. Well done!

[@commandojoe123]

Agreed. The increasing quality of the content speaks volumes of the effort that's gone into it. Thank you for making these videos - and for making them so accessible and enjoyable!

[@elismart13]

agreed :D

[@darrenparis8314]

Agreed

[@TheIcthyosaur]

Yes it definitely was.

[@vangeezer]

@@commandojoe123 audio quality is the most important in inducing trust and authority

[@luckystriker7489]

Excellent video. There was a time when I denied climate change. I liked to put forth the 'evidence' that Mars' atmosphere was also warming. The more I watched content like yours, however, and cross checking the arguments against other sources, the more educated I have become. So please don't stop. Dummies like me _can_ learn.

[@SocialDownclimber]

Challenging your own beliefs is the hardest part of learning. You did well to do so honestly despite the amount of support your former beliefs would have received from less honest sources.

[@SebastianSchepis]

Have you crosschecked the anomalies on Uranus? Neptune? Recent increased heating on Jupiter? What about Venus' planetary winds increasing?

[@DASLAKILL]

Its called climate forcing, and it is the sun. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqbPYWqerZ2Jbtk

[@SocialDownclimber]

@@DASLAKILL Hey that was a really misleading video. It is also proven wrong by this video. It said that the inclusion of solar particle radiance was a big change in the modelling but particles cannot penetrate the atmosphere without giving up their energy. That's why the aurora is so high above ground. This video showed that the upper atmosphere is cooling, so the effect of solar particle radiance must be much smaller than the greenhouse effect for planetary heat flow. Secondly, I'm pretty sure almost all current climate models account for the albedo of clouds. You could check for me if you like. You want to check that?

[@elismart13]

I really do think you've heavily improved how enjoyable your videos are, they were always informative but now they're really fun/funny aswell "perfectly balanced as all things should be"

[@antonhardy2454]

And fundamentally wrong

[@antonhardy2454]

"CO2 is the important one". Compared to water vapour? Let's just ignore the fact that water vapour is more than 10 times as abundant as co2, absorbs infra red and microwave radiation more strongly and changes phase in the atmosphere while co2 is always a gas. We can also ignore the fact that most heat transfer between the earth and atmosphere is via convection and evaporation while most radiation (all wavelengths) passes almost unaffected through the atmosphere. Yes, ignore all the empirically verified physics and you can be a proponent of "new science", fully endorsed by politicians with no scientific knowledge at all.

[@elismart13]

@@antonhardy2454 then make your won videos better than his, either that or stfu honestly reading these replies made me question of why your even watching the video

[@elismart13]

@@antonhardy2454 "no scientific knowledge at all" wow you've totally lost it... you need help seriously

[@antonhardy2454]

@@elismart13 the old ad-hominen, argument of the intellectually defeated. Why not counter my argument? With facts, scientific reasoning or logical deduction. Do you know what these are? Or do you prefer to be told what to think?

[@YarinM]

Hi Simon! long time viewer here :) I really like your humor and actually it is what made me stick to your PHD vlogs (till today). I'm just here to say that I like your channel the way it is! I like that you find the appropriate note for each topic, and not every video of yours is either super funny or too serious. You find the balance and I encourage you to keep on doing so :D 🥰

[@FueledbyJohn]

The most tragic part is this particular kind of denialism still lingers despite many channels over several years repeatedly explaining, good video! 🙂

[@MrNicePotato]

Probably confirmation bias. Most people who watch these kinds of videos probably already believe in the science of global warming.

[@alansmithee419]

That's because most videos that do it repeatedly mock those who are making these arguments. That does not educate, that makes people double down. These people are worse for science communication than the people they're mocking.

[@CarlosAM1]

@@alansmithee419 That's a generalization, there are videos explain it without mocking anyone even in the slightest and do so very respectfully, literally every single result I found on the first few youtube were respectful videos that calmly explained this, of course followed by blatant misinformation that tried to mock science. Also you are just gonna ignore facts because someone put a 3 second clip that says "shut up about the sun"? In a single video? Please remember that said people may have not even correctly researched the topic in the slightest and now they are gonna get mad and double down for (in the case of this video) a quick joke? If so then i'm afraid there's a greater problem here. Let's not swiftly switch most of the blame to the people actually talking about science shall we?

[@CraftyF0X]

@@alansmithee419 if anything in the entire world deserve to be mocked and ridiculed than that is when someone knows very little but assumes he knows everything.

[@alansmithee419]

@@CarlosAM1 I said "most;" not all. And this particular video was not included in the "most." And yes, there is a bigger problem here. The problem that people on all sides of almost every debate refuse to actually listen to new information and reconsider their opinions based on it. The first step to combatting this in any given debate is to stop mocking those who are on the other side of it. Only then is there any chance whatsoever that they will listen to what you have to say. Show them respect, and slowly but surely, more and more of them will become willing to listen. Every internet discussion in which two or more people fling insults at each other for their beliefs, be they political, (un)scientific, or otherwise, is a step backwards.

[@Treviisolion]

I think this was the first time that the reason why more CO2 didn’t just block more sunlight from coming in clicked for me. Thanks Simon for answering a question I kept forgetting I had.

[@SlowhandGreg]

More CO2 slows down heat escaping to space

[@SoftBreadSoft]

@@SlowhandGreg yes, but eventually there will be a point where the co2 reflecting sunlight outweighs the trapped heat. The sun is 98% of earths energy input lol

[@itsez1129]

@@SoftBreadSoft Sure, but that should be a pretty serious amount since Venus's surface is hotter than Mercury's despite its distance from the Sun.

[@alanbeasy1775]

Hmmm. Does Simon know that CO2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen so it settles to the bottom (near vegetation) so it does not even get up to the Stratosphere. Good grief, there not even enough oxygen to breath above 10km so a heavier trace gas that is only 0.04% of the total atmosphere is not going to be present above 10km. Ozone is up there, but that is there to filter out incoming UV. A bit disappointing to see this sort of junk science being presented.

[@rdizzy1]

@@SoftBreadSoft Only when you get to an absolutely insane level, the average temp on Venus is 460 degrees C and it is STILL getting hotter. So to get to this level you just need to wait until the ghgs are so insanely high that all life on the planet is cooked out of existence.

[@paulgnsn554]

Ive been amazed that this is still an issue. I remember this idea surfacing in 2006 and having quite the field day before being more quietly debunked shortly after. But even this year (2022) I've seen vociferous attempts to claim that the sun or sun spots are behind climate change. Thanks for this.

[@paulgnsn554]

@@dillonkeller4477 okay..what is your thinking behind that statement?

[@qwertzundefinedapfel3830]

@@dillonkeller4477 " well, when I wrote that comment, I was thinking, 'I've been amazed that's it's 2022 and people still think there's 'climate crisis''" Dammit, what a really strange coincidence! Here I am, reading your comment. While at the very same time thinking "now, why am I *not* surprised that someone leaves half a brainfart as a comment here and elaborates by just more brainfartiness?". Must be the decrease in solar radiation. Or the sunspots. Or the ice which grew somewhere some year and don't you dare to look any closer!

[@deang5622]

@@dillonkeller4477There is a climate crisis, it is impossible to deny the satellite imaging showing the melting of the ice caps over the years. It is impossible to deny the increased frequency of flood events in the UK over the decades. The question is, how much of it is down to mankind.

[@Sivatra]

Shut up and come back when you have solution to it, and proper one not shit as EU version thats driving up the inflation and making ppl poorer.

[@deang5622]

@@dillonkeller4477 You laugh but you have failed to provide any counter evidence. If you have a theory then you need to be able to provide evidence in support of it, otherwise you have nothing

[@constantinople999]

New camera looks great! Although seeing eyebrowless Simon in HD is certified nightmare fuel!

[@MartinPoulter]

Your editing skills have reached another level, maxing out the dimensions both of entertainment and of scientific persuasiveness.

[@mark4asp]

He has not persuaded me. I need more than a supercilious smile to persuade me. How about someone cite the empirical research behind Simon Clark's claims; but only If there is any evidence. If he has no evidence, don't bother trying to persuade me with non-existent studies.

[@MartinPoulter]

@@mark4asp You're talking about a guy who has published a book, has published research, and cites the research he uses. If you think the studies are "non-existent" did you even look for them?

[@mark4asp]

@@MartinPoulter He cited no research here. Same old supercillious preaching. Most likely missed his calling in life; likely there's a parsonage waiting for him somewhere.

[@mark4asp]

@@MartinPoulter It's not my job to look for studies which may, or may not, be relevant to his talk. It is his job to cite evidence.

[@MartinPoulter]

@@mark4asp Get your story straight, man. Either you're only interested in reading studies or you're not interested in doing the least effort to read studies. Can't even lie convincingly? You're calling someone's attitude faith when it's based on scientific research and all you have to offer in return is faith.

[@stiimuli]

ummm....the folder didn't appear orange when you shone the light through it....

[@ClimateAdam]

soooo important. so many people think climate science is just people looking at surface temps and co2 levels and going "CORRELATION EQUALS CAUSATION" buuuut there are loads of physical changes that can only be explained if the warming was caused by the troposphere absorbing more longwave. another is how rainfall is changing, which would be completely different if the extra heat was arriving through sunlight at the surface rather than longwave in the troposphere.

[@pit-fz4wi]

Not sure whether this is a stupid question but what are the implications of a cooling stratosphere? Or aren't there any?

[@laurencefraser]

There's bound to be some, though how significant, relevant, and/or imediate they are is another matter, of course.

[@fffff2521]

Yeah, the model with CO2... Do it with water. You' ll get the same results. And indeed there is more water in the atmosphere than like 200 years ago. Most of the surface of Earth is water. If more energy comes from the Sun, more water evaporates, more vapor in atmosphere means higher greenhouse effect - warmer lower parts of atmosphere, colder upper parts.

[@Dundoril]

"And indeed there is more water in the atmosphere than like 200 years ago." yes thats the expected result of warming due to more CO2 in the athmosphere "f more energy comes from the Sun, " Except solar irrediance has been slowly falling for 50 years

[@OldShatterham]

That makes me wonder, did we see a decrease in energy trapped by the atmosphere under the "ozone hole" (because there was less sunlight trapped by ozone there)?

[@ax14pz107]

I would imagine the temperature at the surface would increase as more of the shortwave radiation is reaching the surface. The stratosphere would cool though. Edit: the stratosphere would stop cooling and the earth would stop warming though as a new equilibrium is achieved because the decrease in ozone is no longer happening thus the change in energy retained in the atmosphere versus the land would stop changing.

[@kenchaddock]

This is an interesting explination that completely ignores conservation of energy. The energy that heats up the earth, which in turn then heats up the atmosphere...comes from...wait for it...the sun. If solar output declines, the earth cools down and then the atmosphere will cool down. If, conversely, solar out put increases, the earth will become hotter, followed by the atmosphere...see how that works ? The total thermal output of humankind is a very small fraction of solar output sonhumansvaren't "heating up the atmosphere" the earth is and the sun is heating up the earth. Since the sun is currently entering a Maunder Minimum which is a period of low solar output that is also characterized by reduced sun spot activity. Since the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth will be lower during this minimum, the earth will heat up less and so will the atmosphere. How large an effect this will have is not predictable so we can't say whether it will be "business as usual" or whether we will go into another "Little Ice Age" similar to the ~1300AD to ~ 1850 GLOBAL cooling period...yea yea, I know that Wikipedia says it was localized to North America but that comes from "Climate Scientists" where as historicalnrecords from the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynisties in China, records from pre and post Colonial India. Colonial Aftica and the Ottoman Empire ALL speak of cold weather and poor crop yields and outright famine due to crop failures during g this period...

[@Crispr_CAS9]

"If solar output declines, the earth cools down " Solar output has been declining for the past 60 years while the atmosphere has warmed. So obviously your simplistic approach doesn't work.

[@James-tn2or]

This was a "Brilliant video." Quick question, this isn't really related but I was reading a book in which is said that during the 1980's the AO was negative but during the 1990's till 2005 it was positive and now is neutral. What part does it have to play in the recent climate change around the world as a whole?

[@karatos]

There is a third (and fourth fork) hypothesis that I wonder how they would model here. One is that part of the warming below is based on average temperature and not high temperature, and the average has increased in areas due to greater thermal capacity and absorption of solar radiation, so roads and cars and such get hotter than a tree would and then radiate through the night to bring up the nighttime low, making the average temperature go up. Then add in all the extra water vapor in the air from rain pooling on these less-permeable-than-dirt surfaces and that contributes as well. Then there is the weird school of thought some of us are in where we think that natural climate change exists, and that it is ongoing, and that humanity is having an impact in a number of ways but our activity does not explain all of what we see (both because of natural impact and seemingly flat out fraud in some reports), and also that the doomsday claims are unfounded, and that the claim many make that a racist global totalitarian government is the only solution is laughably absurd. We know CO2 is going up because we are releasing it and we know CO2 going up should raise the temperature and we know the temperature is going up in most places, the issue is CO2 doesn't seem to explain all the warming some studies find, and it definitely doesn't explain the warming most studies predict, and it is super far off from justifying the policy proposals some political parties claim are the only solution. We so-called climate change deniers tend to wonder why those that call us that themselves deny natural climate change. And we joke about how if a modeler is asked 2+2 they will double the data set and, expecting the number to be larger, they will weight the data a little making the query 2+2+2+2+3+3 which is 14, which is pretty close to 15 (a nicer sounding number) so they round up to 15 and divide by 3 for simplicity, but they have so little confidence in this and don't want to be proven wrong so they answer 2+2=5(+/-3). Then the news will make the headline "scientists say 2+2 as much as 8!" And the politician will accuse the other politician of denying 2+2 is basically 10 (they only read the headline) while the other politician (who had an intern skim the article) says the same study found 2+2 is most likely just 2 and both sides accuse the other of denying science, and when it is empirically proven 2+2=4 they will take a victory lap saying their model was correct because the answer was in the range. Yes, 2+2 is definitely not 2 but it also isn't 8 and it sure as heck isn't nearly 10. Yes, all of the changes we see in most places are not explained by the sun alone (and we do, indeed, have evidence that it isn't the sun, at least not alone) but all of the changes are also not explained by CO2 alone. If the changes observed have 5 causes and we change the entire world based on only 1 hoping to reverse the impact of all 5 then we are going to fail and billions of lives are on the line.

[@dougfrench8231]

Thank you !

[@feliperangelgodinho5468]

The albedo its already calculated in the models, its used for example fot the arctic and clouds, soo the models already use it and the CO2 model alone can explain the changes in temperature well enought, to be honest. the artifical change in albedo just examplain 4% of all the increase in temperature and water vapor is just getting higher after high c02 concentrations not constructed surface. and i understand the fear but the research is going on for 50 years, and the debate is finnaly getting at the public minds exactly because the cientific community finished the debate, if they were still debating nobody would care, its unnequivocal now. to be honest the debate had finished 20 years ago, but the effects are finnaly visible... soo thats the reason we are finnaly getting attention to the problem

[@rdizzy1]

No ones solution to climate change is to just lower co2, it's just the easiest thing to make attempts at lowering. (IE- the lowest hanging fruit) Take a look at Venus to see how co2 alone can raise temperatures, as there are no cities, no water, AND it is MUCH further away from the sun than mercury and still the surface temp is 460 degrees C (while mercury is only 179 C). The atmosphere of venus is 96.5% co2.

[@hansenyang4014]

6:45 I didn't know I needed Simon Clark without eyebrows. Now I can't unsee it

[@chaomatic5328]

"controlling demons inside electrified sand" I'm stealing this

[@fromnorway643]

Isn’t part of the reason for the stratospheric cooling that more CO₂ makes it better at radiating away heat, at least as long as the number of CO₂ molecules per cubic metre still is far lower than in the troposphere?

[@AntoniGawlikowski]

Thanks for another great video! As always it's interesting, informative and thought-provoking :) If I might suggest one thing: the periodic "tic" in your background music was quite distracting and made it difficult to focus on what you were saying. Also, while wearing headphones it seems to come from behind, so first I suspected my chair is acting up :P Would be great if you could find something else, without this infuriating noise :) Anyways - thanks again for all your videos! Have a nice day

[@rational-being]

Further to my comment about "greenhouse gas" (GG) IR generation near the tropopause: There is still enough CO2 in the lower stratosphere for the mean free path of photons at the centre of the CO2 resonance to be quite short (a few tens of meters). Since the UV heating from above causes the temperature in the stratosphere to rise with altitude, more IR is sent downwards at the centre of the resonance than upwards. How then does IR even cross the stratosphere to escape into space? The answer is that far enough away from the resonance, the mean free path becomes long enough to cross the stratosphere. In effect, there is a "blockage" of wavelengths near the resonance. Increasing the CO2 concentration widens the range of blocked wavelengths - a potentially warming effect. Increasing the CO2 concentration both enhances the IR generation at the tropopause, but widens the range of blocked wavelengths. The two effects compete in opposite directions re warming.

[@tobajor5277]

Bit of feedback: While I really like the use of the occasional joke and meme to make the video more entertaining, I think in this specific video it resulted in a pacing a bit too quick to follow a complicated topic like that. I personally would prefer a somewhat calmer style. (then again, I am german so what do I know about being entertaining)

[@PMA65537]

I liked the pacing. I'm used to putting a lot of channels on x1.25 speed. I have a BSc physics with no focus on the atmosphere.

[@Cosmognosi]

I have a misunderstanding, and I want a clarification please. The earth adjusts its temperature in order to achieve energy balance: the incoming energy from the sun is equal to the outgoing energy from the earth (altogether with its atmosphere). If the Earth’s temperature rises, both on the surface and in the troposphere, then isn’t still the thermal energy that leaves the troposphere the same as before the rising? So, shouldn’t the stratosphere be receiving the same energy in both occasions? Where is my fault?

[@rps1689]

Check out Trenberth's model for the earth's energy budget.

[@darrenparis8314]

When CO2 is higher, long wave radiation emitted from the surface is absorbed by the troposphere, so it doesn't reach the stratosphere, and the stratosphere cools down. That's what's happening now. Got it.

[@fromnorway643]

Strictly speaking, longwave radiation isn’t _reflected_ off the surface, but is _emitted_ from the surface due to its temperature after being heated by shortwave radiation from the Sun.

[@darrenparis8314]

@@fromnorway643 Yes. Good catch

[@fromnorway643]

@@darrenparis8314 I just want to add that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases absorb _incoming_ as well as _outgoing_ longwave radiation (the direction doesn't matter for the absorption). The reason why this has a net warming impact is that about 99 % of the Earth’s energy loss to space happens at wavelengths _longer_ than 5 micrometres (5 µm), while more than 99 % of the incoming energy from the Sun happens at wavelengths _shorter_ than 5 µm.

[@darrenparis8314]

@@fromnorway643 This is also important to understand, thanks Norway :)

[@23Agarwaen]

I like this new format. It looks like you've had fun making it.

[@CitiesForTheFuture2030]

Thank you very much for this great explanation that - hopefully - even politicians & economists (and BA students like myself) can understand... pictures, animated diagrams & good humour are always a winner 🤗

[@deang5622]

Politicians and economists will never understand science

[@CitiesForTheFuture2030]

@@deang5622 Is that the scientist's fault? Sometimes I get the impression all scoentists do is write papers in "scientist speak" that only they understand. Sciency stuff needs to be "translated" into language everybody can understand - not "dumbed down", just in plain English (or whatever other language) with less of all the jargon etc. Or perhaps politicians & evonomists don't want to understand? Sometimes doing what's good for the planet or society in general - which is actually their job - requires spending that does not necessarily result in a monetary profit in the short term. Unless there's "profit" politicians & economists lose interest...

[@Ron_the_Skeptic]

The opening graph is incorrect. Anyone who flies in a commercial jet can see the outside temperature ranges between -40C and -70C. Further, the bright side of the moon is 100+C while the dark side is -150C or colder. Whomever put the graph together did not measure accurately.

[@op4000exe]

Controlling the demons inside electrified sand might be my new favourite phrase about how electronics work xD

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

Just don't let the magic smoke escape!

[@op4000exe]

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 What must I sacrifice in order to avoid letting out the magic smoke? I think I need some thaumaturgic advice on this arcane conundrum.

[@alansmithee419]

@@op4000exe You need only sacrifice current. Keep it low and the demons won't get too angry.

[@chrisnotaperson8127]

it seems odd to me that in the visible light spectrum the blue light, the higher energy wavelengths, get scattered making it harder for them to get as far through our atmosphere and even potentially getting trapped where the reds and oranges go so much farther through the atmosphere. But once you get down into the IR light it seems the shorter wavelengths happily blow through the atmosphere with little disturbance but the longer wavelengths get trapped and reabsorbed sometimes going down as much as going up. So the sky is blue for the same reason we're slowly cooking the planet?

[@SimonClark]

Not really no. Blue sky occurs due to Rayleigh scattering, which basically says that the amount of scattering of a wavelength of light is inversely proportional to the (fourth power of the) wavelength. But the light isn't absorbed - just bounced around. It eventually reaches the surface. By contrast, the interaction of longer wavelength radiation with greenhouse gases is an absorption, and so energy is retained in the atmospheric system, which raises the temperature. The reason for these two processes having different effects is that scattering is to do with the physical size of an object like a molecule, while absorption is to do with how molecules of different shapes can "house" different amounts of energy. I hope that makes things a bit clearer!

[@deepashtray5605]

@@SimonClark You gunning for Bill Nye's job? :)

[@ankeuttajaespanjassa]

Just brilliant in so many ways. Thank you for using animations, I have aphantasia and I can't follow up without them.

[@KosmitPL]

This one of your best videos to date when it comes to the balance between actual science and great humor. Side note, pray to the Omnissiah for help in battling the demons in electrified sand.

[@jaredbusse3717]

This is one of my favourite videos of yours. Humour and education!

[@NinjaBerzerker]

I would be interested to see if the model that had extra short-wave radiation from the sun increased the water vapor in the air as this would for sure happen with extra energy from the sun and water vapor has a much higher level of energy absorbing attributes.

[@Gigano]

Yes, more of this format please!

[@rational-being]

Further to my comment about convection in the troposphere: At the tropopause, further heat transport towards space can only be by radiation. This is where an increase in the concentration of the gases misnamed greenhouse gases (GGs) provides the necessary IR for the very reason that they are GGs. Increasing the IR generation near the tropopause is potentially a cooling effect.

[@lewismassie]

"Controlling the demons in electrified sand" made me laugh suddenly and forcefully

[@alansmithee419]

The air absquatulated from your lungs.

[@tomjones242]

Simon, you forgot something, Co2 blocks only part of the wavelength, it’s like a radio signal, the signal can be increased but it still stays in its band width, so we can double the amount of co2, without trapping in extra heat. Also the hole in the ozone has decreased over the Antarctic, but looks like a new hole seven time bigger is opening over the tropics even with the ban on chlorflourcarbons ?

[@Crispr_CAS9]

"Co2 blocks only part of the wavelength" The issue isn't 'blocking', it's absorption and re-emission. The more CO2, the higher the altitude of final emission of the affected wavelengths, which results in less energy per photon emitted, which means a lower energy flux, which means more heat is retained by the planet. So yes, doubling the concentration of CO2 does in fact trap extra heat.

[@tomjones242]

@@Crispr_CAS9 Unfortunately science is theory and observation as current observations don’t match your theory as good as it is, the theory is wrong. Current data from satellite temperature readings UAH version 6 show there has not been any recorded warming over the last 6 years, with the temperature today still less than what it was 24 years ago

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@tomjones242 " as current observations don’t match your theory as good as it is" Current observations match the predictions of global warming just fine.

[@tomjones242]

@@Crispr_CAS9 you need to read 1984,

[@wrath276]

6:4 You describe the lapse rate but make no mention of the fact that the dry lapse rate is not a function of greenhouse gases, and that surface temperature is largely a function of the thickness of the atmosphere. The lapse rate of Venus is much the same as Earth after allowing for the distance from the Sun despite Venus being nearly all CO2 and Earth having only 0.04%. Also if I look at Arctic temperatures over the last 100 years both measurements and observation show no net increase. Are you saying the warming in the 20s and 30s was due to the Sun but recent warming after the cooling in the 70s is not? Was the cooling in the 70s due to the Sun despite warming From CO2?

[@markmcleod6376]

I made a career of “controlling the demons in electrified sand”. I was a Sand Wizard! That’s going on my Resume and Business cards!😂

[@bogipepper]

How do you balance this with history and the sun's cycles?

[@fromnorway643]

If the ongoing warming in the lower atmosphere was caused by the Sun, the stratosphere would be warming, too.

[@bogipepper]

An isolated snapshot of factors in no way is a conclusion. History has taught those who look. Sun cycles have determined climate and history for thousands of years. Single factor conclusions carry no weight in except for folks working their conclusion backwards.

[@fromnorway643]

@@bogipepper If you actually watched the video, you surely didn't understand it. Increased energy output from the Sun will warm the _entire_ atmosphere, not just the lower part of it. The cooling stratosphere due to an increased greenhouse effect was predicted by science already in the 1960s.

[@henryginn7490]

I love Simon's sense of humour, this video was hilarious (and informative)

[@timpala5841]

Hope much of an effect does the magnetosphere have? I have read that it is collapsing at a high rate and offers less protection from the sun's radiation, hence more heating.

[@W1LdnKai]

It's down 15% and the rate at which it's weakening is increasing... Allowing more energy into the system.

[@TimRobertsen]

Love the editing and humour! :) I actually laughed out loud, it doesn't happen all that often!

[@Thrna_1]

When you mentioned that methane absorbs long wavelengths, I immediately thought of how that might be why Uranus is cyan-colored, along with gas stove flames, and the methane from cows contributing to global warming is partially responsible for our ongoing climate crisis.

[@fromnorway643]

Methane (CH₄) has an atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years and quickly establish a balance between emissions and removal if the emissions are stable. It will therefore only be a problem if the emissions keep increasing, something that unfortunately seems to be happening right now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#/media/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

[@Thrna_1]

@@fromnorway643 at least they had decreased in 2020, by about 8% as a result of the pandemic. But I'd say we have a very narrow chance as a species, to reduce emissions significantly by the end of the 2020's.

[@fromnorway643]

@@Thrna_1 The methane concentration levelled off temporarily in the early 2000s, but has now resumed its rapid increase from the 1980s. The global CO₂ concentration has increased most years between 1850 and 1944 and _every_ year since 1944. Half of the total increase since 1850 has happened after about 1987-88. CO₂ _emissions_ dropped about 5 % in 2020, but was back to 2019 level already in 2021 and will set a new record this year.

[@funky555]

I diddnt expect the bit at 1:06 and i chuckled. thanks edit 1:13 too lol. Good video

[@3dVisualist]

Sorry, completely off topic here, but the music track you use from 2:02 onwards has an annoying 'tick' in the background that sounds exactly like a hard disk head crashing! Nearly gave be a heart attack! Until I realised that I have a SSD! Too late to change now, but please don't use this music again - still having palpitations!

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Very interesting video Dr. Clark. Climate science is a very fascinating field of study

[@xaviermaster1]

Yeah but its sad that not many people listen to them about climate chage

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

@@xaviermaster1 too many people believe conspiracies and I still idk why

[@MisterK9739]

@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI because conspiracy theories generally do two things: a) give a simple explanation to a very complex topic and b) shift the responsibility from the believers to some "shadow group"

[@johnmurphy9550]

'Climate science' is like 'domestic science' and other 'social' sciences, they're pseudo-science. The sciences involved are physics, chemistry and maths. You know they are real because they don't require 'science' after the subject. The sun is solely responsible for the heating of the planet, try turning it off & seeing the result. The greenhouse gases help retain some warmth, 90% of which is done by water vapor. Of the others, 3-4% is done by CO2, but if you understand the physics, you'd know it doesn't work in the way claimed by the climate models. Which is why all and every one of the models relied on has been wrong, continuously and in spite of adjustments to the programs and the data, to try to prove it's the driver of the climate, it's not. 60 years in & nobody, certainly not the pseudo-scientists, have been able to obtain evidence it is. Nobody I have witnessed, even those the climate Nazi's call 'climate deniers' actually 'deny' it's changing, it has for the entire history of the planet - which has been far hotter, far colder and with higher and lower CO2 levels. There's another graph, in the IPCC's August 2022 Sixth annual review, that shows the temperature changes over the last 400k years, it makes sober reading if you are keen on reality. More people die from cold than heat, this current drive to replace our current energy systems with solar and wind are doomed to failure and would result in far more deaths than a little extra warming - we need time to develop tech that will actually work - the world is greening because the extra CO2 is good for plants and trees. If we turned off everything in the UK, it would make zero difference, China will replace all the pollution and CO2 produced by the UK in less than one month, such is the rate they're expanding coal use and plan to do until 2060, when they might start reducing it - if you believe that & I don't - I'd write more but I doubt it would be enough for the worshipers of the climate religion.

[@johnmurphy9550]

@@MisterK9739 and the pseudo-scientists posit false theories then try to prove them, and have failed for over 60 years. The fact is, it is a very complex problem, which the climate alarmists have decided can be explained by very complex diagnoses, if it's hot or there's a damaging event, it's climate change. If it's cold and there's an associated event, it's climate change. If there's no discerning change or events over any given period of time, it's weather. Doesn't get much more complex than that...

[@MrSam2450]

Was a very fun video but it left me wondering. What does fog have to say about this. We never ask how is fog just what is fog

[@whateverrandomnumber]

Water vapour makes much more sense. The concentration of CO² is like 0.4% of total atmospheric composition. As the earth warms up (due to [cyclical] increase in sun radiation), the amount of water in the atmosphere increases and explains the same mechanism described in the video. This information doesn't change anything.

[@jaykanta4326]

Wow, that was a dumb comment. You not only used an appeal to personal incredulity (ignoring the research showing the effect of that small concentration of CO2) you claim the sun has increased in "radiation" without evidence. Why would you do something that dumb?

[@whateverrandomnumber]

@@jaykanta4326 "sun radiation" was a generic term for "sun radiation hitting the earth", considering the Milankovitch cycle, Schwabe cycle, and all the resulting energy irradiated from the sun that hits the earth. We're in the so called "Modern Maximum", after the "Dalton Minimum" in the 1800's. There is plenty of evidence. You just have to look them up if you don't believe random people's comments on KZbin.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@whateverrandomnumber Well there's the "google gambit" or better known as the "burden of proof" logical fallacy. No, you have zero scientific evidence that the sun is driving the warming observed since the 1800s. Try an actual citation to peer-reviewed research.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@whateverrandomnumber It's not the sun: Knutti, R., & Hegerl, G. C. (2008). The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geoscience, 1(11), 735-743.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Just because something makes up a small amount doesn’t mean it has no effect. Co2 study after study has down to be the main driver of Earth’s climate throughout phanerozoic eon especially so.

[@jacobfeldman1994]

The vids where you are enjoying yourself are the best. Also my mum walked it while I watching this in the kitchen and said you were " A very handosme young man with a nice accent" So global warming might be a thing, but at least you have that

[@philipgotthelf642]

Once again, Simon leaves out the chemistry of CO2. Aside from being a weak greenhouse gas, its ability to absorb and radiate heat is limited. Also missing from this panic mongering is the rate of acceleration in CO2 sequestration associated with plant growth. As NASA confirms, the planet is getting greener. I can’t wait to hear what Simon’s models say about the Tonga eruption’s impact on the stratosphere. No one was expecting that to happen.

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

I like the brief musical flairs in this video. It's very subtle but it adds a nice Bill Wurtz-esque touch.

[@tadhgtwo]

Simon, great video. Absolutely loved the editing and format. Hugely entertaining on top of informative.

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

*You got one thing wrong:* We Americans do not use "simplified" English. *We use a highly complexificationized version of the language.* (We also ignore those stupid squiggly red lines underneath words that try to tell us we're using them wrong. I made up the damned word and it's mine now!!! (Libertarian Capitalism FTW!!))

[@martingillette7613]

OK, I've heard enough. I was with you until you said CO2 is the important gas. Water Vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas. CO2 is insignificant. There are two very good reasons why CO2 does not and can not cause global warming. If you spent 5 years of your life on this, you should know better. 1.) Every ice core, temperature vs CO2, study done shows that CO2 changes follow temperature changes. It is an effect not the driver. 2.) At the wavelength of radiation, where CO2 absorbs, all of the radiation is already being absorbed; mostly by water vapor. So there isn't anymore radiation to be absorbed. It would be like having five towels to clean up some spilt milk. If the first towel cleans up all the milk, you can use as many more towels as you like and you won't clean up any more. So you can add many more times CO2 and you won't get warming. This is why there have been times were there was much more CO2 yet the Earth was cooler and times when there was much less CO2 and the Earth was warmer. This nonsense has been going on since temperature records started being kept in the late 1800s. Every 5 to 20 years the Earth is going to die out, the ice is going to melt, the coasts are going to be underwater. There shouldn't be any polar bears, no coast line or icecaps at this time!! These predictions have been given by climate quacks for decades and exactly none have ever come true. There comes a time when you have to question the methods and more importantly, the motives, of these so called climate scientists. The only warming that seems to be happening is due to NASA and NOAA changing data with ridiculous models. The actual record shows no to little warming going on. The problem with "climate scientists" is that they use models, without all the possible variables, and don't do any actual data taking. Instead of using simulations, why not do an actual experiment? Those have been done and they show what I described above in number 2.

[@definitlynotbenlente7671]

But co2 causes the initial rise in temperature that causes more water vapor less co2 means the atmosohere is cooler so afther a while the amount of watter vapor reduces

[@martingillette7613]

@@definitlynotbenlente7671 CO2 cannot cause the initial rise in temperature since its level follows temperature. The temperature goes up followed by CO2. The temperature goes down followed by temperature. Less CO2 means the oceans are cooler. The oceans are by far the greatest source of CO2. Cold water holds onto CO2 and warm water releases it. It does not make sense that CO2 causes temperature changes. There are very good theories about what is going on with global climate. They involve cosmic rays, water vapor and sunspots. You should look into that. Since we know that the sun is heading toward more sunspot activity, as it does about every 11 years.. They know the temperature will be going up because it always does with greater sunspot activity. So, it's easy to lie about CO2. Then when the temperature goes back down, as it always does with less sunspot activity, they will claim it was because of their policies.

[@daikansanchez7674]

Very interesting analysis. I would like to know if and how geo-magnetic storms, solar radiation and proton influx from the sun affect the chemicals in the atmosphere; specially because in the last few years the solar cycle has been more intense. I have noticed while traveling from Latin America to Europe (passing through the US) during early June this year (2023), in the places where there is little to no cloud coverage the intensity of solar radiation feels harsher. Even the hue of solar light is different. I'll add that I was monitoring solar activity during the period I was traveling and it coincided with periods of solar flares, CMEs (Coronal Mass Ejections) and geo-magnetic storms. I think that would make a great addendum to this video.

[@kubhlaikhan2015]

Not inclined to take anything seriously from a video that deliberately garbles its discourse. BTW, it is a well established fact that the sun has been slowly warming over the last few thousand years.

[@punki2291]

And? We talk about a century warming not a thousand years. It doesn't matter if the sun warm over few thousand years if it didn't warm the last century.

[@feliperangelgodinho5468]

snowflake....

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

I really, really, like this "Minute Physics - Atmosphere Edition" type of video. Collab anyone?

[@KillerChickn]

More CO2 means more plant life to convert said CO2 into Oxygen. More CO2 means a restoration of forest and rainforest life that we've been destroying. It's wholly contradictory, and I find ironically hilarious that climate activists both want less CO2, and our forest and rainforests to regrow. You'd think they'd want more CO2 to help with that. It balances itself out over time. Eventually the excess CO2 will be consumed to equilibrium by an overabundance of newly growing plant life that is consuming it. Stop worrying about nonsense. Climates change naturally, Humans naturally evolved like everything else, everything ends and everything we do is natural. This planet will not go on forever, neither will we.

[@Dundoril]

" More CO2 means a restoration of forest and rainforest life that we've been destroying." No it doesnt. Thats just wishful thinking. I mean part of the increase is due to forest being burned...

[@KillerChickn]

@@Dundoril Yes it does. Plants consume CO2 and convert it unto oxygen. You can look up any study on increased CO2 levels also increasing greenery in areas. More plant food = more plants. Very simply supply and demand of food chain. If there's a lot of food, there will come a lot of life to consume it.

[@Dundoril]

@@KillerChickn " You can look up any study on increased CO2 levels also increasing greenery in areas. " And plants also need a stable climate, nutrient etc. "More plant food = more plants" Thats first grader logic.... "If there's a lot of food, there will come a lot of life to consume it." Only if they have enough water to do that, and the temperatures are right and the other nutrients are there.

[@KillerChickn]

@@Dundoril Plants are durable, it depends on the species, but if it's already adapted to live in a place, it's going to be fine, and better when extra food comes into that system. There's no water or nutrients in the rainforests we cut down? Is this your argument? Cuz by that logic the rainforests are gonna die anyway without the water and nutrients so why not continue to chop them all down? Pure idiocy. You think my comment is first grader logic? Lmao

[@Dundoril]

@@KillerChickn "lants are durable, it depends on the species, but if it's already adapted to live in a place, it's going to be fine, and better when extra food comes into that system" Yes again your dirst grader understanding of plants is rather silly... "There's no water or nutrients in the rainforests we cut down?" Not sure where I claimed that but: Rainforests are short on nutrients most of them are, at any given point, inside of the plants itself... " Is this your argument?" No it wasnt. "e anyway without the water and nutrients so why not continue to chop them all down? " This is getting silly. I never claimed something like that. What are you on? ". You think my comment is first grader logic? " It sill is

[@Feefa99]

Question. What If Titan would be in same distance from Sun like Earth. Would be atmospheric heating larger or smaller than on Venus, because Titan has 5% of Methane in atmosphere which is much stronger greenhouse gas?

[@SimonClark]

An interesting question! And I don't know the answer. But I'm actually working on a tool that could answer this in the near future - I shall add your question to the list of those I will use the tool on...

[@Feefa99]

@@SimonClark That's great, thanks, you can name that tool "Simon says"

[@mark4asp]

3) Energy does go from the earth to the atmosphere; in a roundabout way. About 50% of earth's surface cooling is due to the process of "evaporative cooling". When water changes state to vapour, it absorbes "latent heat of vaporization"; this loss of this from the surface cools that surface. This latent heat does not change the temperature of the absorbing water; it acts to break intermolecular bonds; the process of which is associated with the change of state to a gas. Water vapour is lighter than air, and, so, convects up. It cools as it rises according to the lapse rate. After about 8 days it consenses and forms clouds. The latent heat is released on condensation; and is radiated to space; from the top of the clouds. Above the clouds there's hardly any water vapour so there's nothing to absorb the infrared so radiated by clouds. In this way, water vapour is responsible for about 95% of actual earth cooling. For confirmation of this 95%, see: Rex J. Fleming: "The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide theory of Climate Change".

[@brentwilbur]

This is shameful sophistry.

[@davidheumann4243]

Go on...

[@brentwilbur]

@@davidheumann4243 The argument is made from the assumption that global warming is even real. Religious people argue from the same position when they assume God is real and use it to justify moral precepts. It is evidence that this entire production is an act of confirmation bias disguised as science communication. If global warming _is_ real, _this_ isn't evidence of it.

[@arthurzettel6618]

Years ago they were worried about Global Cooling and that we were headed for possible Ice Age. Later on it became Global Warming and Climate Change. Now we're back to Cooling. We are also experiencing a Geomagnetic Pole Shifting/Excursion that has speeded up. (So how does this Corelate with your information?) Just curious.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

"Years ago they were worried about Global Cooling " There is no point when there was a scientific consensus supporting global cooling. The consensus has been in support of global warming since the 1960s.

[@petrie911]

To be fair, the Earth would be quite a bit cooler without the Sun.

[@samyu9056]

I’ve really enjoyed this chaotic Simon

[@Asvarox]

I usually don't comment as I watch yt on TV but this was super funny and educative at the same time, kudos

[@isaalghazi9131]

One LITTLE problem here. . .for the last 10 years the CO2 concentration has gone UP. . but the Temperature has sayed the SAME .. or DECREASED, which shows the idiocy of the entire theory of CO2 propogated temperature rise. A thought, however. Would you rather be COLD, or WARM. 5-8 times as many people die from cold as from heat each year. Cold reduces the food supply and vegetation, heat increases both. I want it WARMER, not cooler. No one needs to freeze to death or starve because it's too cold to plant crops. I want WARMTH. Screw that ice stuff.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

"Temperature has sayed the SAME .. or DECREASED" Global temperatures are ~0.28C hotter now than a decade ago.

[@Chevsilverado]

Idk what your evidence is but it’s literally not true. Sorry??

[@Danniels95]

Your humor’s starting to match Upisnotjump and I’m enjoying every bit of it.

[@otakudjr]

on headphones, you can hear this slight knocking you've added... and it sounds like it's coming from behind me. Was this intentional??

[@philosophem1629]

I've always wondered why, on the ground we have 40°, and at aircraft altitude, 11 km, there are -60°...why these two levels don't mix together, but instead there are always almost 100° of gradient, without these two levels "talking"... what is the physics behind this behavior?

[@7071SydcHome]

Search 'Adiabatic Process' & 'Lapse rate'.

[@arnehofoss9109]

What is the temperature on the back side of the moon? And, why? Is the earths distance from the sun constant and is the earths tilt constant? Do the sun vary in intensity? Why do we have ice ages? Why was 1850 the coldest periode in the last 10 000 years? Why was the middle age much warmer than today? Is it all about the sun? Earths orbits around the sun and earths tilt? What is behind global cooling?

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Argh..the hot /cold legend visually conflicts with the atmospheric arrangement. make it horizontal or flip the colors.

[@Will-kt5jk]

5:50 (ish) this is something I’ve found a bit weird. It’s likely just down to which wavelengths are being measured, but: - I’d expect satellite thermal imagery to show lower temps to to the (effective) insulation impact of CO2, but most satellite imagery shows the reverse. - potentially at a saturation point (loose terminology, don’t shoot me) the heat would leak out at a higher rate, hence observable from space I had assumed we’d reached that saturation point, to explain the satellite thermal imaging, but if the stratosphere is still cooling, that can’t be right, right? Sooo, it must be down to satellite imagery measuring different wavelengths of IR than those being absorbed/re-emitted by CO2, right? Or is that the ‘extra CO2 getting excited’ part that satellites are observing? (maybe in combo with the specific wavelengths measured) If that’s correct, then I guess the kind of saturation point I was thinking of is massively higher & maybe unsurvivable? Be interesting to have a vid explaining that case as well (if you’ve not already done one). I can’t escape the feeling that the general ‘science reporting’ of ‘surface hotter = looks hotter from space’ is oversimplifying, given the mechanism(s) of warming. Please Simon can you un-simplify it for us?

[@tiredofallthis7716]

While I enjoyed the video I will never be impressed until real experts engage in public and politically unfettered debate, face to face, discussing not only the driving factors of global climate but also the good and bad effects. If anyone thinks global warming is a problem then they need to know what global cooling can do. They need to know just how close to extinction life on earth came to when CO2 was at 280ppm. Life ends at 150ppm.

[@XenXenOfficial]

That temperature skit was unexpected but welcomed. It got me 🤣

[@randytucker3083]

What about moisture and it's effects?

[@cameronsteel6147]

The humour in your videos just keeps getting better!

[@congero113]

He should have said the troposphere is warmed from below but the Stratosphere is warmed from above. At the start he glossed over this and said the whole atmosphere was warmed by the earth emitting heat…Incorrect. The fact that cooling has been verified in the stratosphere does not verify that that CO2 is heating the troposphere. The vast majority of upwards heat transport in the troposphere is from convection, not infrared radiation. ‘Greenhouse ‘ cooling in the stratosphere is very real and pronounced but ‘greenhouse’ warming in the troposphere is greatly overestimated.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

How is greenhouse warming in the troposphere overestimated?

[@mark4asp]

With regard to my question (asked earlier) "The atmosphere is heated from below by the earth, which is heated by the sun"

[@rational-being]

I am afraid this video's conclusions are nonsense, because the vertical heat transport in the troposphere is controlled by convection and the thermodynamic properties of its dominant gases. Any slowing of transport in the IR radiation channel is exactly compensated by an increase in convection. This has been standard climate science for at least 90 years and has not been superseded.

[@gogudelagaze1585]

I have to say Simon, your videos are getting better and better. Much love

[@dsp3ncr1]

"CO2 is the important one" ??? Considering that there is MORE water vapor, (on average), in the atmosphere than CO2, AND water vapor absorbs a broader spectrum of infra-red radiation than does CO2 I have to say I rather doubt your assertion. And then there is also that ability of water in the soil to evaporate due to absorption of solar radiation by the soil and taking that heat directly into the atmosphere without needing to "radiate". Your "model" seems woefully incomplete to me.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

Because water vapor is a strictly responsive feedback, while CO2 can act as a primary forcing.

[@YraxZovaldo]

First, only looking at the absorption spectrum of a gas is half the story. The earth doesn't radiate equally in all IR wavelengths. While water vapour has a broader spectrum, a lot of this spectrum doesn't align with the emission spectrum, so is not relevant. CO2 partly absorbs wavelengths for which H2O is transparent. CO2, thus is a relevant greenhouse gas. Second, looking at what the most common or most potent greenhouse gas is, is useless in determining the cause of a temperature change. For the temperature to change due to a greenhouse gas, the amount of that greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has to change. A constant doesn't cause a change. Since the concentration of water vapour is strongly regulated by temperature and extra water vapour rains down in a couple of days, water vapour itself cannot be a direct cause of a change in temprature.

[@ozjaszhorowitz919]

Interesting but i'm not totally conviced. Important part of the sun caused warming is about decreasing strenght of earth's magnetic field, that's in favor of first hypothesis, but not that sun is pumping more energy but that more energy can penetrate earths atmosphere. It's however obvious that magnetic field doesn't reflect light and thermal radiation but i'm not sure to what extent other highly energetic particles from the solar wind can contribute to the global warming.

[@LawrenceMclean]

What is the short term effect of adding a massive amount of water vapor to the Stratosphere?

[@DouglasMoreman]

You say that heat travels from a colder body to a hotter body ? Can you clarify that step ?

[@mrunning10]

Bot. Go away bot.

[@duncanlawson4002]

Have you worked out increase in radiation due to magnetic pole shift that has decreased our electromagnetic defence by around 20c , coincidently since mid 1870,s and the poles are accelerating , and they are moving on all the planets ,not just earth

[@punki2291]

Electromagnetic change in intensity cause almost zero difference in the global troposphere temperature compare to GHG emission.

[@punki2291]

I'm talking about energy difference.

[@hime273]

@@punki2291 Where's you proof of that?

[@punki2291]

@@hime273 Physic : Electromagnetic drive change in heat in few miliwatts par square/meter while the heat in the troposphere necessary te be stable is around 200-300 watts/square meter. You compare something that got 100 000x less energy.

[@RaymondSynold]

Shocked alternate Simon at the desk is hilarious

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

That needs to be used as a reaction gif.

[@fixitmoditbreakit7982]

So what about all the roads and buildings we've built? Doing this haven't we increased heat being Absorbed? If so surely this is adding to the larger wave lengths being admitted from earth. Having grass and forest would lower this hugely compared to concrete! Just a thought because when the ice melts at the poles it has a huge effects as the rock is uncovered.

[@mikemines2931]

You've cocked up but still need to sell the book. I think that's it.

[@WebmediArt]

Oh man I really thought this would be click bait only for me, but I was well entertained, while ALSO learning something new. :O

[@physics.ishan5566]

Who is called a scientist? What is the work of them?

[@3312ynot3312]

Now do the same video but talk about humidity changes globally as we all know water vapor has a strong effect on atmospheric temps

[@IdunRedstone]

I now have Great Thunberg the climate book and Firmament so I am too powerful of a procrastinating sideline climate science enjoyer ready to absolute destroy facebook comment sections with facts and logic I skimmed over.

[@sebucwerd]

No way the stratosphere is that simple.

[@alansmithee419]

Nothing in physics is anywhere near this simple. You want detail? Go to University. Do a PhD. Dedicate your entire life to understanding the stratosphere. Maybe by then you'll have actually scratched the surface of all there is to know about it. But more likely you'll have a very good understanding of one or two stratospheric phenomena. No it's not that simple, but you have to stop somewhere. The question to ask is not "is this explanation perfect?" The answer will always, unequivocally, be "no." The day the answer becomes "yes" is the day science comes to an end. The question to ask is "is this explanation sufficient for what it's trying to achieve?"

[@markustilgner]

So the learning is that the sun has no impact on climate. It is all because of human made CO2. So what is the explanation for warmer climate in the medieval time (when they made wine in England). As it was not the sun and not the CO2 - what was it???

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

5:34 this killed me 😂 the humor in this video definitely made it more engaging lol

[@youkofoxy]

This is a Awesome explanation on how the atmosphere works, and also raises a question. if the upper atmosphere got cooler and the lower atmosphere got warmer, does that means we get more air currents? That said, I find hard to understand what is the point of blaming climate change on "not a human". As the problem is a threat to life as we know it on earth, so a good solution that does not have unforeseen consequences and has proven efficacy must be implemented.

[@feffermickel]

This one took a little more thinking to get my head around, but it's a really good explanation. Now no one will mention the sun theory again. Ever.

[@Dragrath1]

I wish I could have this much faith in human intelligence sadly I have learned that certain people will ignore evidence no matter how strong because they don't like the implications of that evidence. Instead the best we can do is have this video ready to refute their argument every time it comes up.

[@cncshrops]

Bless.

[@QT5656]

Have you checked Twitter lately?