Thanks!

Thanks! I appreciate the comment!

🙏😁😎

The fact that emissivity of CO2 is so close to 1 at relevant IR ranges supports its importance in radiative forcing as described in the video, and so supports its importance to warming. Atmospheric water vapor concentration is limited by the amount of liquid water (primarily in clouds and surface water) that enables condensing vapor to reach an equilibrium with evaporating liquid water, which is what we call 100% humidity. This equilibrium can get as high as 4% atmospheric water vapor in hot climates. If water reached 10% of atmospheric gases, that would likely be past water's tipping point and so the earth would be in a runaway warming, so likely no equilibrium would be reached, at least not before we are all dead. Quantifying emissivity will give the same warming values presented in the video.

Glad it was helpful! Thanks.

de Broglie’s 1924 model was a description of electron behavior justifying Bohr’s quantum electron (1913). The mathematics of Schrodinger’s 1926 equation was modified by Pauli (1926) to include his exclusion principle, which creates degenerate orbitals to account for the existence of multi-electron atoms. These mathematical expressions I believe do not specifically address de Broglie’s idea of wave interference beyond the separation of degenerate orbitals. The flaw here is that all occupied orbitals overlap at some point since all orbitals converge at the nucleus. So while I have not really answered your question (sorry) I do think the answer lies in Pauli’s modification of the Schrodinger equation.

Thanks for watching!

Rutherford had done prior experiments with different metals that gave the same result as gold. For Rutherford, these experiments confirmed Thompson's atomic model and strongly suggested there could be no other result-- he assumed looking beyond a 2 degree range would yield nothing. However, being the consummate experimentalist that he was, in addition to knowing the substructure of the atom was resting on indirect evidence, he understood that the model could be wrong, even if he did not believe that would be the case. Additionally, he wanted to strengthen his conclusion of the validity of Thompson's model by showing there were no deflections beyond the 2% range. So he went ahead and looked for deflections a full 360 degrees around the gold foil. The positive results strongly showed a revision of the model was required.

You’re welcome! Thanks for watching.

Yes, but Heisenberg's (1926) model was the same as Schrodinger's (1926), based on the electron's energy manifesting as a wave. A mathematician (forgot who) in 1926 pointed out the the two mathematical expressions were describing the exact same atom, the same electron behavior, and in 1930 Paul Dirac combined the two into a single formalism.

Love the neocortex. Neocortical folds make for a manifold understanding of folds of atomic orbitals and folds of hybrid orbitals. For one more drupelet, I plan (soon!) on adding a video on molecular orbitals, for a final fold upon folds upon folds. By the way, love the drupelet metaphor. I never would have thought of it. Thanks! : ) BTW #2, if you really are lacking familiarity with electron (atomic) orbitals, see my video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e92WarWdu7Smg3U.html

I loved reading Faraday's lectures on the candle. The guy was too brilliant. I created an entire lab for my students based on his experiments. I also love reading Atkins. I'll have to take a look at that one.

Thanks! You're very welcome.

Hi- sorry I just retired (!) and these files were on my school account which has been closed. I’ll have to dig them up and will post them ASAP! Thanks for asking!

I found them. This is the MSWord file, the formatting requires MSWord-- docs.google.com/document/d/1yUeVy6xfQ_50EK1dLCaa3SbjrlZjD0Yd/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116884422502737165564&rtpof=true&sd=true and this is a pdf of the Word file drive.google.com/file/d/1TX2Kzdsw1HQyIzsHsL6ZDaRCkvkKzftb/view?usp=drive_link

Thanks so much for a very gratifying comment. You should know (if you haven’t already noticed) that I pinned a previous comment and my answer regarding the potency of CO2 versus CH4, something that was not well considered in the video narrative.

Thank You!

Great! Thanks for the comment!

I'm glad it was helpful!

Thanks for the comment. Luv u 2!

Thanks for your comment!

I'm very glad it helped!

The periodic table was originally organized according to properties and weight (1869), the weight was replaced by #protons (1917), but that did not change the organization. That organization was later found to fit perfectly with electron organization (late 1920s). So the answer to your question lies in electron organization and Schrodinger's original quantum mathematics from 1926. The mathematics gives a simple formula for how many electrons will occupy a given energy level (principle quantum number, n), which is 2n^2. Another organizing principle is that when going from one block to another on the periodic table, the added electron will go to the next higher energy level in the very specific order given in electron configurations. This is the aufbau principle. OK, so what happens when going from 4s to 3d? The issue here is that 1) the 3d orbital has a slightly higher energy than the 4s orbital, and so 3d has to be filled after 4s. 2) This also allows for the fullfilment of the 2n^2 rule. The reason 3d has more energy than 4s is due to angular momentum. The shape of the 3d orbital is far more convuluted than the simple sphere of 4s, which in turn requires that the 3d electron have a much greater angular momentum (which translates to more energy) than a 4s electron. The same explanation tells us why 4f comes after 6s, and why 5d comes after 4f. I hope that makes sense!

Thx

I'm always happy when people are having fun! Thanks for the comment!

I graduated college in 1982. It's been a fun 42 years, especially after the discovery of youtube. I believe it was at an archeological dig in the Mohave.

Thanks for the comment!

Sorry it took a while to get back. When dividing by a positive exponent (= dividing by a large number) the result is a small number. And dividing by a large exponent, in this case 10^7, is exactly the same as multiplying by its inverse, which is 10^-7. Notice the exponent is still the same, however it is now negative instead of positive, which gives the same small number as if you were dividing. NOW, the answer could have been written as 18.2 * 10^-7, which would be correct. I moved the decimal to the left one digit, so it is now 1.82, to follow the convention of writing scientific notation with the decimal after the first number. This makes the coefficient ten-fold smaller than 18.2, and so to compensate and keep everything equal, the exponent must become ten-fold larger: 10 x 10^-7 = 10^-6. So 18.2 x 10^-7 = 1.82 x 10^-6. Hope that makes sense.