Greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases | High school biology | Khan Academy
Рет қаралды 110,890
Күн бұрынCourses on Khan Academy are always 100% free. Start practicing-and saving your progress-now! www.khanacademy.org/science/h...
The greenhouse effect, driven by gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, is essential for maintaining Earth's habitable temperatures. However, excessive concentrations of these gases-particularly due to human activities-can lead to global warming and climate change.
Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We offer quizzes, questions, instructional videos, and articles on a range of academic subjects, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, history, economics, finance, grammar, preschool learning, and more. We provide teachers with tools and data so they can help their students develop the skills, habits, and mindsets for success in school and beyond. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 15 million people around the globe learn on Khan Academy every month. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we would love your help!
Donate or volunteer today! Donate here: www.khanacademy.org/donate?ut...
Volunteer here: www.khanacademy.org/contribut...
@dylantjaviation5964 3 жыл бұрын
great! learning more things everyday not just me playing video games all day
@BertWald-wp9pz 9 ай бұрын
The other half of the explanation of Greenhouse gasses deals with the way the earth absorbs light reaching the surface and re-emits this as a black body in the form of long wave radiation which is what the CO2 is absorbing then re-transmitting. What often gets omitted from explanations is the absorption spectrum of CO2 which is relatively narrow plus at a certain point it becomes saturated because it has absorbed as much as it can. This can be measured. Then there is the issue of treating the earth’s surface as a black body because this is a function of temperature difference between emitter and surroundings which is not always positive - think of the sea. It also is affected by the colour. Add to this that the theory is based on a vacuum and there are a load of new questions that need to be addressed in even a simple explanation such as this so as to avoid the error of assuming all questions have been answered. Weather systems including evaporative heat loss and wind are also driven by energy from the sun though exactly how much energy is tied up in this does not appear in the explanation. Cloud reflectivity is considered but difficult to model. To cause a serious problem positive feedback is required due to increased humidity but this is also only crudely modelled. So far I have not found the answers. It does however go some way to explaining why to the average person the climate models appear poor predictors and justified retrospectively.
@douglasengle2704 8 ай бұрын
My Falls Church VA USA high school George C. Marshall science in the late 1970s told that earth's greenhouse effect was the model of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to the earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the surface, typically the earth. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is from water vapor. This is a short and definitive description of the greenhouse effect. Once a system is in saturation it can no longer be made to have further effect by increasing its active elements. The greenhouse effect is frequently studied in high school as demonstration of the physical property of a system always in saturation. The noncondensing greenhouse gases can not change the overall greenhouse effect. They could be theoretically removed or increased many times and the overall greenhouse effect would remain the same. The greenhouse effect is frequently used as the model of system always in saturation from water vapor even though water vapor varies hugely across the earth's surface. The variance is made up by the statement within 20 meters of the surface. In many situations all the greenhouse radiant energy is completely absorbed by greenhouse gases in a distance less the 20 meters from the radiating surface. The United Nation's IPCC science report in its back pages acknowledges that it is NOT in-fact discussing greenhouse gases in a manor constructive to the discussion of global warming by a legal statement of data transparency that it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude. There is no greenhouse radiant energy more than 20 meters from the radiating surface, typically the earth. That IPCC data transparency statement of 20,000 meter altitude gas sampling is acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases of earth greenhouse effect in a manor constructive to the discussion of global warming. This is the same marketing practice that takes place when a beverage is labeled "All Natural Fruit Flavors" and then in the ingredients it tells the truth "contains no actual fruit juices" Global warming has been paused at about 1°C since the early 1990s. Global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. The physics mechanics of the greenhouse effect is that a certain band width of the far inferred radiation from surface interacts loosely with the lumpy electrostatic fields of greenhouse gas molecules typified by gas molecules of largely differing sized atoms such as H2O water vapor and CH4 methane. CO2 carbon dioxide is almost inert as a greenhouse gas. The diatomic gas molecules O2 and N2 have no interaction with greenhouse radiant energy. Once the greenhouse radiant energy has been absorbed by greenhouse gas they do not reradiate the energy as their main heat transfer. Heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. It is a one way energy transfer in the electromagnetic spectrum used by the greenhouse effect.
@sandipagrawaltalks 2 күн бұрын
👍
@Ask_08 3 жыл бұрын
Sal...! You're incomparable and unbeatable. Nailing every subject, every topic so finely. Abundance of love & Thanks❤️❤️❤️❤️ You're doing such a great job for entire humanity. Big Fan♥️
@user-lr2gc 3 жыл бұрын
Please check "ACHARYA PRASHANT" on youtube for greenhouse effect's connections with POPULATION,CONSUMERISM AND SELFISHNESS OF HUMAN INTELLECT 🙏PLEASE THEN YOU'LL GET TO KNOW IT'S REAL CAUSE
@randykubick 7 ай бұрын
huh? - he called the green house effect a metaphor I think he meant analogy.
@abbyharris6293 Жыл бұрын
I finally have a clear understanding! Thank you!
@SwaSwaPlayz Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! Loved the explanation!
@joeyk19801 10 ай бұрын
Okay..... Why doesn't the CO2, for instance, block incoming radiation from the sun at the same rate it blocks it from the earth? Why is it not a net zero effect?
@seedex6730 10 ай бұрын
Because the radiation from the sun that the earth recives contains less infrared light than the radiation from earth.
@miked5106 7 ай бұрын
bc direct sunlight is mostly ultraviolet light which is a different frequency range that does overlap the oscillating frequency of CO2 molecules. It is the frequency of the infrared light reflecting back from Earth that does overlaps the oscillating frequency of CO2 molecules. Similar to how microwave oven frequencies overlap h2O molecules and create heat.
@gabrielbarbosa4643 3 жыл бұрын
👌👌👌
@habibarakhi5404 3 жыл бұрын
🙃🙃🙃🙃
@lilac8403 3 жыл бұрын
😎👍🏻
@miked5106 3 ай бұрын
I enjoyed your presentation. thank you for sharing it. Have you considered that in the presence of the atmosphere the Earth's Surface is not radiating more than trace amounts of infared? This would be wonderful news for mankind as it would mean that CO2 has no IR to absorb and thus is not a danger to the plant. Basic physics suggests the Earth's energy (99%) is dissipated thru conduction and confection to the top of the atmosphere where it will then radiate harmlessly to space.
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
@miked5106 == half wit. So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: Units 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space ===== All the above repeated and reordered unaltered Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface Surface energy (as power) Budget 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space -------------- LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns on solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat"). -------------- So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.
@petermukooza2288 Жыл бұрын
so simply put - I can have any amount of greenhouses, all I have to do is put holes in them?
@303Scott 2 жыл бұрын
Nice cartoon. Can you show us the GHE being physically measured in reality?
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: Units 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space ===== All the above repeated and reordered unaltered Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface Surface energy (as power) Budget 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space -------------- LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns on solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat"). -------------- So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.
@kimlibera663 9 ай бұрын
Let me offer a critique. First, 800,000 years is a blip in geochronology. The video that focuses on just this one period neglects all the other geochronological periods including the first & the other 5 ice ages. Also I would not begin the video focusing on the composition of the atmosphere starting with greenhouse gases because that neglects the 2 major gases. Thus it can give the impression that our atmosphere is dominated by co2 & h2o.
@viancavarma3455 2 ай бұрын
this is an ap class, the intended audience is well aware of the composition of the atm
@kimlibera663 2 ай бұрын
@@viancavarma3455 I doubt they can describe the changes between the periods.
@gufpott 9 ай бұрын
The idea of a GHE might have merit, but the idea of an Enhanced GHE (sensitivity to CO2) doesn't. For the extra absorption of IR in the atmosphere to have a warming effect on the surface, the warming aloft has to exceed the temperature rise at the surface. Nothing could have a radiative warming effect unless the radiator rise in temperature exceeds the temperature rise of the IR absorber. All (yes ALL) of the climate models predict this particular pattern of warming, and it became known as the "tropospheric hotspot" . Only thing left to do was to observe it to confirm this exists in the REAL atmosphere (not the MODELLED atmosphere). But it isn't observed. They first tested this 15-20 years ago and reported the failure in the literature. More observations have not changed this observation. There isn't an Enhanced Greenhouse Effect or sensitivity to CO2 in the REAL atmosphere. That's an observation and it is decisive. The physics behind all the MMGW theory doesn't work in the real world.
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
@gufpott == half wit So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: Units 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.65 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space ===== All the above repeated and reordered unaltered Atmosphere energy (as power) Budget 0.33 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the atmosphere 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, using up 1500 "heat" Units 1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere, generating 1,497.64 "heat" Units 0.92 LWR Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface Surface energy (as power) Budget 0.67 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs into the surface 1.43 LWR Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface 1.57 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes into the bottom of Earth's atmosphere 0.45+x "Heat" (regular+water evaporation latent) rises from the surface into the troposphere at a range of altitudes x "Heat" (regular+water condensation latent) goes from the troposphere at a range of altitudes into the surface 0.08 LWR Leaks out the surface and goes to space -------------- LWR straight from the surface to space is because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths Earth makes LWR & SWR photons from the centre of Earth's core to the top of Earth's atmosphere (it's all various atoms & molecules making it) in an amount of several hundred billion of those Units above, an amount of several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs. It can't much get out to space though because practically the exact same amount of photons several hundred billion times as much as the Sun's radiation here also gets absorbed by the same, or other, atoms & molecules by the time it's travelled a few microns on solids & liquids, or travelled metres in troposphere gases, or travelled metres to kilometres in stratosphere gases and higher, being converted when it's absorbed into causing faster atom or molecule speed, kinetic energy (which is what's commonly called "heat"). -------------- So there's the balance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed below and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent through the TOA to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.43 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.175, then there'd still be 2.35 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.175 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.43 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.43 leakage changes to 0.91:1.44 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks. 2024-07-15 Greta Lube typed "sun's radiation and spectra vary all over the place". S.B. "Sun's radiation varies by a massive 0.07% so sometimes it's dropped way down to 99.965% of its regular and some
@kayjay9383 Жыл бұрын
The largest source of greenhouse gas is The Congress of The United States.😢I am a citizen of the United States😢.
@josiahwetter1491 10 ай бұрын
Hi do they know the green house has levels from four million years ago without the technology to monitor back then?
@grindupBaker 9 ай бұрын
I dunno and I'm not looking for you. It's called "Geocarb 2" or "Climber" or something like that in case somebody browsing past is GENUINELY interested so they're willing to ... Wow guess what ? ... ACTUALLY SEARCH the vast Internet instead of asking a Totally Fake Question like standard random reeking drive-by idiot Troll "@josiahwetter1491"
@troydixon7 2 жыл бұрын
Does Oxygen not radiate? It seems to me that more compounded particles in the atmosphere would deduct heat from electro radiation to psychical surfaces by radiating the particles and processing them back into physical vegetation objects and the oceans. Like a cloud would block the sun from the mercury and the human. How does the energy from a gas compound heat anything? Gas particles don't store any energy compared to the physical. All the particle does is move around and process back into the planet. I mean, when it gets warmer the vegetation grows faster. Every lawn mower man knows this. I don't see how it has any affect on the physical temperature. You lose energy when you shiver. As for rising sea levels, what about the procession wobble (chandler effect)? We see cyclical storms (intensity and frequency level patterns) of 10, 30 and 100 years. If you look at all the records we have. We don't have them all. How do you gather infra red on the dark side of the planet? How are there ancient trees all over the Earth? How is carbon dating not considering other potential variables as well? You can't get a statistic from a limited data set anyway. The bell curve only works with a sample from complete data set. Even then it's plus or minus 4, right? What ever that means. I think the less cultivation the worse the storm potential is. The more trees and vegetation with an increase in Oxygen, which has more electrons than the carbon element, the more kinetic energy there is in the atmosphere the stronger the winds can get. I think human cultivation and vegetation management stabilizes the planet's weather. But then you got too many bats and covid. I think Carbon sinks and Oxygen is suspended for biological life. I think if all the humans and animals died it would be a massive violent storm. Makes sense to the color spectrum, the sky is blue, the carbon is green.
@grindupBaker 2 жыл бұрын
Oxygen doesn't radiate at the Earth's surface-atmosphere temperatures, too cold. Oxygen radiates when temperature gets high enough to promote the energy level of its electrons. Some bigger gas molecules like N2O, N2O2, NO2, O3, H2O, CO2, all CFCs, all HCFCs, CH4 and many others can radiate at low temperatures such as -90 degrees and below to 200 degrees and above because it makes their atomic nucleii vibrate asymmetrically, which is energy. Then they can stop vibrating and emit a low-energy photon having that same energy. N2, O2, Ar gases can't do that because their molecule has no way of vibrate asymmetrically, too small, too simple.
@bartonpaullevenson3427 Жыл бұрын
Which gases are greenhouse gases depends on the arrangements of an atom's, or a molecule's, outer electrons. If it's vulnerable to absorbing a photon, it will have "absorption lines" in its spectrum. Oxygen doesn't have absorption lines in the thermal infrared, so it's not a greenhouse gas. Neither are nitrogen or argon. But water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases.
@douglasengle2704 8 ай бұрын
Greenhouse gas molecules transfer heat by convection in the lower atmosphere. That is gas molecules bumping into each other. Greenhouse gas molecules entirely absorb all the greenhouse radiant energy within 20 meters of the radiating surface, typically the earth. That is taught in high school science. Gas molecules in the lower atmosphere don't radiate energy at a high enough energy level to make an appreciative difference, but that can be used to measure their temperature. Radiant energy goes up with the hypercube of the absolute temperature K°^4. Normally something needs to be near glowing to radiate energy of any significance.
@Xhopp3r Жыл бұрын
When man was emitting close to 0 greenhouse gasses, the concentration of greenhouse gasses was still high. Sure the concentration went higher once man starting emitting greenhouse gasses according to the graph, but the 800k years graph shows the same spikes prior to man.
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
Liar Absurd Liar
@Xhopp3r 5 күн бұрын
@@grindupBaker Nope. You just choose to believe the things that tickle your ears. You want to feel like you're standing for something good, but in reality you have no clue about the evil you're standing for. God commands the weather, and when Revelation 7:1 happens, and it gets super hot, then you might understand and believe that God is the commander of the weather. Denial is a powerful weapon against the human mind. You've fallen prey to it.
@nbasketball1 3 жыл бұрын
Mr.sal On khan academy it won't let me comment on your videos or anything else. Pls respond if you see this
@geniusgamer3840 3 жыл бұрын
I'm not Sal, but your comment is visible
@nbasketball1 3 жыл бұрын
@@geniusgamer3840 k thanks for telling me you can see it
@balajichandrasekaran4227 3 жыл бұрын
1,731st view
@grindupBaker 2 жыл бұрын
Wow ! You're like a relentless viewing machine. Is that every single day including Effelump Show Holiday ?
@95TurboSol 3 жыл бұрын
Important topic but earth will be fine, it's gone through periods of CO2 ppm in the thousands and life flourished like never before (around the time of the Cambrian explosion). The doomsday predictions are just fantasy but just because earth will be fine it doesn't mean it won't cause us humans problems.
@grindupBaker 2 жыл бұрын
An excellent new take on radiative physics. Reminds me much of when Heisenberg & Schroedinger were arguing and punching each other "It's a wave !", "It's a particle !", "It's a wave !", "It's a particle !",
@proofy8375 2 жыл бұрын
yeh the earth will b fine...NOT us
@95TurboSol 2 жыл бұрын
@@proofy8375 Theoretically it will depend where you live, being on the ocean coasts would be more dangerous because of bigger storms (although you could build better homes to compensate). Rising water could be an issue but it's so slow it probably wouldn't affect someone during their lifetime unless you live on the beach or something. I'm more concerned about pollution, land fills and contaminated ground water and running low on important resources than I am Co2, but even this we'll be able to find solutions for as we go, humans tend to have delayed responses to issues we cause but once we put our minds to it we are good at innovating solutions.
@Cashoutkidd 3 ай бұрын
Planets are closer to us then we realize than
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
@Cashoutkidd == Half-wit
@AdeToz 3 жыл бұрын
This video is incredibly misleading and myopic is scope. The narration states that the temperature of earth is driven radiative forces. What he doesn't say is that the overwhelming driver of temperature in the troposphere are convective forces which are essentially driven by the atmospheric pressure and are not controlled by the nature of the gases in the troposphere. This one single fact is why the greenhouse model is a myth. I expect more from Khan Academy.
@grindupBaker 2 жыл бұрын
This video doesn't describe the (utterly simple) physics of the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere correctly. He doesn't understand the (utterly simple) way that it works. This knowledge gap is almost universal. I've come across a climate scientist who doesn't understand the physics. There's scientific organization Web Log site with the same incorrect description. I tried to point this out on RealClimate July 2021 and they just censored my science comment, didn't post it. It's a lamentable situation, not good at all.
@bartonpaullevenson3427 Жыл бұрын
Pressure does not keep Earth warm. If it did, atmospheres would be perpetual motion machines of the first kind. Please pick up a climate science book and read it. Science is your friend.
@mjpsocal 9 ай бұрын
electro magnetic? magnetism is electric not light. IR light is heat. infrared light heats green house gases, the earth has been warmer in the past and it's been colder, there is no crises,
@cmvamerica9011 Ай бұрын
Infrared or heat radiates up not down.
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
@cmvamerica9011 == Half-witted Troll
@cmvamerica9011 Ай бұрын
Correlation is not causation.
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
@cmvamerica9011 == Half-witted Troll
@Swarashitole3221 4 ай бұрын
Hii
@jefflayton153 3 жыл бұрын
Wait, my teacher told us this is all fake, even had a question on the exam that we had to explain why this is a lie.
@SigilOfAletheia 3 жыл бұрын
No way actually??
@PaulSmith-gi5bf 3 жыл бұрын
Our kind is doomed
@obinator9065 3 жыл бұрын
Well this isn’t a teacher then. These people are not worth getting called that.
@cdmarshall7448 3 жыл бұрын
He is right.
@cdmarshall7448 3 жыл бұрын
@@obinator9065 Why because he told the truth?
@surgtek2006 3 жыл бұрын
The earths temperature is affected by the sun. There were times in the earth’s history when the planet was much warmer than now.
@Foxino 3 жыл бұрын
Human societies didn't exist in those times
@lk4845 3 жыл бұрын
The planet wasn’t habitable then. That’s the whole point of climate change- it’s a threat to our existence, not the planet. Planet will survive long after we are gone.
@if-and-only-if 3 жыл бұрын
yes you are correct🙂...but there are many factors that contribute to GW. "earth had warmer temps earlier" doesnt mean human activities are not affecting the earth now. earth was hot due to some natural conditions...earth is getting hot due to human activities. They are mutually exclusive and independent events. you can heat a kettle on a gas-stove or on a electric-stove...but the point is...the kettle is getting hot.
@surgtek2006 3 жыл бұрын
@@lk4845 there are paintings of grapes growing in England. Those were actually good times. You can grow food in places you couldn’t before. The answer to warming is always more money. Pay attention the next time a government official talks about warming. Listen to there solution
@cdmarshall7448 3 жыл бұрын
Absolutely correct the Sun provides mostly all of the thermal energy used for our climate with a little geothermal. So much real climate science has been replaced by political indoctrination such as this video.
@karlostj4683 7 ай бұрын
1. Of all the radiation energy absorbed by the ground and the seas, how much is re-radiated as "blackbody" (aka, temperature-caused) radiation? NO ANSWER 2. Of the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere - notably H2O, CO2, and CH4 - how much of the "blackbody" radiation is absorbed by each (aka, what is their "absorption spectrum")? NO ANSWER 3. Of the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere and their absorption of "blackbody" radiation, how much of that radiation is re-radiated (aka, what is their "emission specrtum")? NO ANSWER 4. If CO2 absorbs less "blackbody" radiation than H2O (and CO2 absorbs FAR LESS BBR than does H2O), how can CO2 be responsible for "global warming" of the atmosphere? NO ANSWER This is yet another gaslighting video, making fact-free and science-free statements. It'd be great if "Khan Academy" provided the CV of this narrator, who doesn't seem to understand anything about basic sciences such as physics or thermodynamics. Which makes the narrator yet another soapbox snake-oil preacher.
@grindupBaker 9 ай бұрын
I'm rating this "greenhouse effect" video as AMBIGUOUS rather than INCORRECT. The presenter was too lazy to spend another 15 seconds accurately describing the radiation from air to surface so some bods will grasp it correctly but some bods will get it completely wrong from this same ambiguous description. Most "greenhouse effect" videos are DEFINITIVELY INCORRECT and not merely lazy and ambiguous like this one. I've rated this one "POOR AMBIGUOUS" in my dozens of Bookmarks of these videos.
@noranicolea5977 3 ай бұрын
I’m trying to find a true video. Do you have one to recommend?
@grindupBaker 6 күн бұрын
No response from drive-by nothingness @noranicolea5977
@rosyrussell5209 10 ай бұрын
Wrong! There have often been greater concentrations of CO2 . This is SO WRONG.
@SacGeoTV 3 жыл бұрын
Unsubscribed
@du42bz 3 жыл бұрын
Cope harder bigot
@davidmurphy563 3 жыл бұрын
You just found out Khan Academy teaches science? The science of GHGs was established well over a hundred years ago. Why don't you think about how it applies to the atmosphere of Venus and then maybe you can avoid getting into a strop?
@AdeToz 3 жыл бұрын
@@davidmurphy563 this video is assumes heating in the troposphere is carried out by radiative forces. The fact is due to Convective forces being dominant in the troposhere, temperature increase is due to driven by gas pressure effects not radiative effect. The temperature of all planets with pressu4es over 10kPa can be calculated accurately by the ideal gas law (pv=nRt). This includes the earth. This simple fact tells you that temperature of an ideal gas system (troposhere) is pressure driven not radiation driven.
@cdmarshall7448 3 жыл бұрын
@@davidmurphy563 This is not science it is political propaganda.
@cdmarshall7448 3 жыл бұрын
@@du42bz Bigot= a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. So you sound more like the bigot.
@donnalemieux1685 Жыл бұрын
drain the swamp and you clean the planet
@eldorado166 3 жыл бұрын
𝙸𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚠𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚐
@eldorado166 3 жыл бұрын
@Muzikgod wrong if you believe the sun's distance is somewhere in deep outer space. One piece of misinformation throws the whole theory off. Just my view 🙏🏾👍🏾
@eldorado166 3 жыл бұрын
Just needed to add that we are currently currently cycling out of an Ice Age which means temperature rise in certain parts of this dimension is Natural. The sun is a small part of the warming process in my opinion. Good video to get the mental wheels turning 👍🏾
@AdeToz 3 жыл бұрын
Wrong because this theory assume that radiative forces dominate in the troposphere. The troposphere thermal activity is dominated by convective forces because the troposphere behave like an ideal gas. Thie simple fact nullifies the theory that radiative forces on CO2 drives temperature increases in the earth's lower atmosphere.
@grindupBaker 2 жыл бұрын
el Dorado1 Yes, This video doesn't describe the (utterly simple) physics of the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere correctly. He doesn't understand the (utterly simple) way that it works. This knowledge gap is almost universal. I've come across a climate scientist who doesn't understand the physics. There's scientific organization Web Log site with the same incorrect description. I tried to point this out on RealClimate July 2021 and they just censored my science comment, didn't post it. It's a lamentable situation, not good at all.
@grindupBaker 2 жыл бұрын
@@AdeToz Yes, This video doesn't describe the (utterly simple) physics of the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere correctly. He doesn't understand the (utterly simple) way that it works. This knowledge gap is almost universal. I've come across a climate scientist who doesn't understand the physics. There's scientific organization Web Log site with the same incorrect description. I tried to point this out on RealClimate July 2021 and they just censored my science comment, didn't post it. It's a lamentable situation, not good at all.
BBC World Service
Рет қаралды 439 М.
Crash Chemistry Academy
Рет қаралды 26 М.
Terra Mater
Рет қаралды 4,6 МЛН
TEDx Talks
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
Peekaboo Kidz
Рет қаралды 3,7 МЛН