The Atmosphere’s Impact on Climate & Life on Earth | GEO GIRL
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- This video covers the basics of Earth's atmospheric structure, circulation, and composition, with a focus on the ways that the atmosphere affects other Earth systems, especially with respect to the carbon cycle, and how perturbations in the C cycle can cause global climate change.
0:00 Atmosphere allows life on Earth
2:08 How Earth's atmosphere formed
4:47 Early atmosphere lacked oxygen
6:56 Atmospheric layers
8:43 Albedo (reflectivity)
11:00 Earth radiation & greenhouse effect
13:08 Upper atmospheric layers
16:00 Atmospheric circulation
17:30 Atmospheric composition
20:05 Imbalance of the C cycle
23:06 Water vapor as a greenhouse gas
24:35 Atmospheric warming outweighs cooling
26:04 Climate feedback mechanisms
27:34 6th mass extinction
29:32 Is atmospheric CO2 bad?
30:35 Rate vs magnitude of climate change
References:
Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change, 4th Ed. amzn.to/41CDHVz
Earth System History: amzn.to/3v1Iy0G
GEO GIRL Website: www.geogirlscience.com/ (visit my website to see all my courses, shop merch, learn more about me, & donate to support the channel if you'd like!)
Hey there, Earth enthusiast! Check my favorite Earth-friendly products:
Bamboo toilet paper: shrsl.com/3cvku
Bamboo paper towels: shrsl.com/3cvkw
Compostable tableware: shrsl.com/3cvkz
Compostable trash bags: shrsl.com/3cvl0
Bamboo cutlery + straw! : shrsl.com/3cwfl
Eco-Friendly Tote (great for grocery shopping!): shrsl.com/3cwfp
Reusable straws + cleaning brushes (my fav!): shrsl.com/3cwft
Eco-friendly laundry detergent: shrsl.com/3cwgo
Directly offset your carbon footprint with Wren: shrsl.com/3d0t2
(Just click link, press get started, take the free C footprint quiz, then choose how much you want to reduce your footprint by donating to the C sequestration projects they're funding!)
Non-textbook books I recommend:
Oxygen by D. Canfield: amzn.to/3gffbCL
Brief history of Earth by A. Knoll: amzn.to/3w3hC1I
Life on young planet by A. Knoll: amzn.to/2RBMpny
Some assembly required by N. Shubin: amzn.to/3w1Ezm2
Your inner fish by N. Shubin: amzn.to/3cpw3Wb
Oxygen by N. Lane: amzn.to/3z4FgwZ
Alien Oceans by K. Hand: amzn.to/3clMx1l
Life's Engines: amzn.to/3w1Nhke
Tools I use as a geologist/teacher/student:
Geology field notebook: amzn.to/3lb6dJf
Geology rock hammer: amzn.to/3DZw8MA
Geological compass: amzn.to/3hfbdLu
Geological hand lens: amzn.to/3jXysM5
Camera: amzn.to/3l6fGRT
Carbon-neutral pencil bag: shrsl.com/3cvjv
Carbon-neutral backpack: shrsl.com/3cvkc
Disclaimer: Links included in this description might be affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with the links that I provide I may receive a small commission, but there is no additional charge to you! Thank you for supporting my channel so I can continue to provide you with free content each week! And as always, let me know your topic suggestions in the comments down below! - Věda a technologie
This should be shown on all channels on tv at the best times of day, so everyone finally understands.
I really appreciate you covering this topic. If even a small fraction of your audience can be convinced this is a problem that’s still a step in the right direction.
Love the cat at the end! Every night, I wake up to find I've been pushed off the pillow again. If I get up from my desk, she usually takes over the warm seat, too.
Thanks a lot! This is one of the best educational videos I have ever watched on CZcams.
Thanks so much! That is so kind! :)
i took notes and did a bunch of sketches, love learning this way rather than sitting in a classroom, thank you!
Hope doesn’t care is an understatement
Great video. I enjoyed the residence time explanation the most. Two remarks; 1/ If the focus would have been on prebiotic atmosphere, I'd love to hear more on photochemistry. 2/ If the focus would have been on anthropogenic problems expected due the rapid climate change, than I'd love to hear something about the impact on heat distribution by water vapor. But I acknowledge this excellent video is an overview. There will always be extra details that are super exciting. 😊
I'm glad Hope is having a good time. She probably isn't the least bit worried about climate change.
You're only getting more and more awesome, Dr Rachel! 😊Thank you for all you've contributed to this little, often-troubled world of ours. It really makes a difference and I appreciate you!
Wow, this is the sweetest comment! Thank you so much :D
@@GEOGIRL Well it's true! My friend tells me, "you can't do all the good that the world needs, but the world needs all the good that you can do." It's like that stone soup story where each of us has our own unique contribution that we bring and when combined is somehow greater than the sum of it's parts. This is beauty to me. It's an act of love and self-love in a Nash equilibrium sort of way.
Another helpful video to prepare for the PG exam. Can I recommend one on hydrology and groundwater flow?
Brilliant ! GEOGIRL (Rachel) you are an excellent teacher. Your presentation is really captivating.
YOU HAVE A PERFECT STRUCTURE AND ATMOSPHERE ❤
29:30 Paraphrased: "Atmospheric carbon (CO2) is essential, but we are currently changing its quantity at a precipitously rapid rate. Such rapid rate changes have prehistorically been hazardous to life as we know it and the life that that we, 8 billion+ of us depend upon for sustenance." If you don't understand that, please rewatch the rest of the video to help you appreciate it.
"Hope, my cat...I am on the very edge, and she doesn't care."
Yet we all have hope.🌹
I suggest Simon Clark's book 'Firmament: The Hidden Science of Weather, Climate Change, and the Air that Surrounds Us'
As far as I know it's the only mainstream science book on atmospheric science. It's a really enjoyable read, he walks you through the history of how we learned all the things we know about the atmosphere, weather, climate and climate change.
It’s surprising how much geology can tell you about the atmosphere and life
Pointless side comment: As a long time viewer, I'm so happy to see all the rocks on display in your new environs.
Excellent presentation. TY.
PBS needs to get you on board and hired ASAP.
that would be a dream lol thank you for that compliment!
15:51 I would rephrase, not mix up "heat" and "temperature". Temperature is the measure of random motion (kinetic energy.) "Heat" is the total kinetic energy. Molecules in the upper atmosphere are hotter, i.e., move fast, but the actual heat content of any volume of upper atmosphere is not very large (because there are so few molecules.)
Another wonderful tour d'force, THANK YOU.✅
That was a great, highly educational presentation which hopefully gets spread widely!
Visible light is funny in that it gets hotter as the energy level goes down toward the IR range of the spectrum where it applies as heat starting at around 20,600K then cools to 14K. Anything outside the IR range is a different energy state, and energy state is why redder light is hotter. It isn't literally hot, but it is low enough energy that spread across many atoms it becomes heat equivalent.
The layering of the atmosphere can also be understood from the perspective of field theory. The Stress Energy Tensor is set up in layers, and when accounting for the Metric Tensor, you shift perspectives from the ideal (mantle) through layers of lesser density (e.g. specific weights) with direction toward the geometric origin to without direction as a function of the field (beyond Earth). From a physics perspective, Earth ends where microgravity applies in the thermosphere.
"gets hotter" S.B. "increases in photon density"
How I wish youtube and your videos were around way back when I was in school.
Thank you DR GEO GIRL
Really fascinating video thank you ❤🌏
Thank you for the incredible detail
Very interesting video, thank you for making it.
I like your work, your cat, your choice of name for her, and your attitude towards your work, and your cat.
Everybody love Hope ;)
Time to buy one more arm-chair for the cat 😊
Thank for thorough story about our atmosphere ! 👍
Interesting, if paleocene and oligocene were so warm, does it mean that CO2 concentration in the air was notably higher at that time ? 🤔
My work laptop is closed and I use an external mouse, keyboard, and monitors. The cat has figured out that it's a 90 watt body warmer. But if I get up she'll take my chair cushion anyway.
As far as I know, CO2 concentrations and planet temperatures have risen and fallen in tandem for most, if not all of the planet's history.
(The climate scientists I watch are quite good at explaining that the two phenomena run together.)
I have a question for you. When I was living in a rural area we had to drill a well for water. That water came out crystal clear but within half an hour the water turned brown as the iron oxidised. My question is "Was that water there since before free oxygen came into the atmosphere?" My hypothesis is that the water with unoxydized iron had to have been deposited in the ground before free oxygen existed to oxidise the iron.
Thank you for this quite interesting video.
I've learned stacks from all your videos and this is amongst the best of them.
Also, I often quote you when discussing this topic with (cynical) friends. I hope to educate them as you're educating me!!
I think that you should be mandatory for all classroom classes that teach science and evolution.
This might be the ideal time and place to pose my favourite unanswered science question: why is the sky high?
Define: why.
Define: the sky.
Define: is high.
😁
If you aren't able to reply your question yourself, you don't possess an ample enough scientific base to receive an answer from anyone else that could fit the available reply space. Sorry for you.
I would guess that the sky seems high, because of the reflection of light from the oceans, that also makes it look blue.
Rachel probably has a better answer. LOL
Nicely done, like your graphics. Earth is hit with much higher frequency light waves (or photons if you’re into particles) than transmit easier through the atmosphere, higher frequency = more energy so reflecting from ice is most efficient. Reflected heat waves are lower frequency and many more required bc of lower energy/photon, but not as easily transmitted through our atmosphere.
wow!!!
Definitely a two part video. Albedo should increase as greenhouse gases rise, but so would polar methane releases leading to limnic style eruptive events of ocean sediments definitely a slippery slope if there ever was one.
Man-made intervention sounds like a very delicate process.
Excellent video! 😊
How would you know? You posted this in less time than the video would have taken to watch.
An exceptional video. But really, one of many such like. Greetings to you and Hope!
It is important to notice that atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude. In the Hadean eon, there was liquid water in the atmosphere much earlier than on the hot Earth's surface. Rain evaporated when falling to atmospheric levels near 100⁰ C. There was probably one muddy cloud overcasting the planet, and it was probably there where life started. The Hadean atmosphere contained a great variety of chemicals and ashes and was subject to high energy gradients and all kind of atmospheric conditions of pressure, temperature, density, electric charge, turbulence, and chemical composition, including ash particles and many other catalysts. The liquid water in the cloud was very muddy, formed by zillions of microdroplets. One particular catalyst, silicates in the mud, was able to catalyse the spontaneous polymerisation of various types of polynucleotides. Inside a droplet, the solved chemicals were contained without requiring a membrane, and spontaneous polynucleotide replication was assured, given time enough for the right conditions to befall the droplet. Hundreds of millions of years of a planetary-sized cloud of tiny biochemical spontaneous laboratories surely was enough to start life (defined as self-sustained system of chemical reactions). Pity this hypothesis is impossible to prove.
While that sound plausible, I expect any life that formed would have been extinguished when it (eventually) fell to Earth as we cooled in the period following the Hadean.)
@@jimthain8777 By that time, life would have already evolved into fully functioning cells able to synthesize nucleotides and aminoacids, and already begun to spread on the boiling sea and on the cooled down crust. The process took many millions of years, so primordial life had time enough to adapt and to spare, life did not suddenly transport to the surface to be suddenly terminated due to an hypothetical sudden change of environment. The Precambrian had life, unicellular life that did not yet form fossils, until colonies first left clear signs of their existence in some of the oldest rocks found. Some hints of organic life even point to the Hadean, with ages of 4.1 and even 4.3 Ga. (billion years ago), prior to the 3.8 Ga. currently assumed to be the starting time of life (for the time being).
Also cloud formation is becoming less during daytime versus nighttime thereby reducing the so-called cooling effects
See you on the Tour, LUV
Rachel 🐈, Thank you for another keeper 🥇. Great stuff 🌫️. Hope is priority one 🥰!
Absolutely fantastic video!
I have some interesting information that I want to share as well.
(Point one, of this I learned from climate scientists videos I also watch.
Point two I learned from a quick google search I did while watching. )
Point one: the hydrosphere IS increasing, because water locked up as ice is melting.
That makes more water available for evaporation.
(The climate scientists I've seen talking about this issue, estimate that we gain 7% more evaporated water in the atmosphere for every one degree of temperature rise.)
Point two:
Your talk about the layers of our atmosphere made me look up the same issue for the Martian atmosphere.
Apparently it has only THREE layers. (Those three layers are apparently very similar to the Earthly ones)
"Point one: the hydrosphere IS increasing, because water locked up as ice is melting.
That makes more water available for evaporation" == Total lapse of logic because the ocean has a VAST store of water with a LARGE surface. "7% more evaporated water in the atmosphere" S.B. "7% more H2O gas". Else OK.
this was very interesting. i was wondering if you could do a video for us on the late heavy bombardment era and evidence of impactors on earth like sperules and black chert & the like. there is a current article in ars technica about this. 🎉
Check out Sabine H. from yesterday. She has not been an alarmist but she is seriously reconsidering that based the increasing number of models that show we are going to Carboniferous hell twice as fast as has been thought up to now. 2023 was the hottest year on record by an increment that significantly exceeded expectations. One data point does not prove anything, but it is not encouraging to say the least.
"She has not been an alarmist " - and neither have others. "Alarmist" is a slur that has been pushed by the know-nothings in an attempt to avoid reality. And Sabine's video yesterday is just her catching up with Dr. Hansen et. al. There are still many climatologists who do not buy the hot-ECS scenario. It will likely be sorted out in the scientific community by 2050 or so, but the masses and policy makers don't really want to make live-style changes anyway.
12:39 The carbon dioxide and methane do NOT block heat from escaping into space. They absorb infrared light emitted by the earth, then re-emit that energy as photons in a spherical omni-directional pattern. Approximately half of those re-emitted photons go upward toward space or to other carbon dioxide or methane molecules higher in the atmosphere. Approximately half of those re-emitted photons go downward to send their energy back toward earth or toward other carbon dioxide or methane molecules lower in the atmosphere.
Of the IR energy sent back to the Earth, some portion of that will be re-radiated as IR back to the carbon dioxide and methane. The total amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gasses depends on how much IR is initially radiated by the earth, what percentage of that IR is absorbed by greenhouse gasses, and what percentage of the IR that was re-radiated back to the Earth will later be radiated back toward the greenhouse gasses and space in a feedback process.
A big question is what is the equilibrium point for the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If humans suddenly stopped emitting technologically produced carbon dioxide, the current levels of carbon dioxide will persist for millennia. If we are not near the equilibrium point for global warming, the Earth systems may continue to keep warming for a long time.
The diagram the appears at about @1:06 shows some of the more detailed process you are talking about.
You we right to sacrifice your comfort to the cat! 😻
Ha ha as if she has a choice.
Climate science is the branch of physical geography
At the end she should've explained that lizards love hotter temps and mammals dont. 6th mass extinction.
Can’t believe I didn’t know something as basic as the volcanic outgassing origin. What were my teachers doing?
Isn't it correct to simply say that oxygen is a byproduct of cyanobacteria because cyanobacteria are the only group that does photosynthesis? Chloroplasts are just endosymbiotic cyanobacteria aren't they?
So aren't the only organisms that do photosynthesis, 1. Endosymbiotic cyanobacteria, 2. Non endosymbiotic cyanobacteria? So, just cyanobacteria?
Or is there a type I am missing?
So what you're saying is, "it's complicated"? Tho the sheer rate of change is clear
ECS, the Equilibrium Climate Stability, is expressed in degrees centagrade that the atmosphere at the earth's surface will increase by doubling the greenhouse gas content. The reported values range from one to seven degrees.
The equations, when you look at them, are for doubling the total greenhouse gasses, not for doubling one component, for instance CO2.
To make this point abundantly clear, CH4 is a potent greenhouse gas. If the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere doubled, would you expect the temperature at the earth's surface to go up by 3° C (the average reported ECS value) ???
Sorry to go all mathy, but doubling the CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm is not the same as doubling the total greenhouse gas in the armosphere. Water vapor is another powerful greenhouse gas. If water in the atmosphere is 3,000 parts per million, adding 300 ppm doesn't even get you a tenth of a degree C.
I'm not suggesting that CO2 doesn't warm the earth. It does! But nowhere near what it is claimed...
Look at the actual formula!
Where is my math wrong? Or, (dramatic pause) am I right?
In reality I don't think CO2, or even all the green house gasses combined need to warm the atmosphere by much to cause serious repercussions.
They act as a lever that create other affects.
we've been pushing this particular button for more than a century now, and there are now some serious consequences in the pipeline.
I expect the next decade to be very interesting for scientists, and very alarming for every day humans.
Not because it will make us extinct, or something similar, but because we're going to get change, lots, and lots, of change, and humans don't like change.
"The reported values range from one to seven degrees" Not really, ECS was always really 2.5 to 4.5 but much more likely around 3.5 than anything else. Hansen has 4.8 degrees but that's thin tea and barely more than the old standard upper limit of 4.5. The "1.5" was always strictly political and all scientists knew it (there was a single rubbishy Paper or something and some Governments would let it be tossed out. Hansen's 9 degrees isn't the ECS (which only takes 2,000 years, to complete ocean warming) but was ESR (Earth System Response) of the warming over the next several thousand years as the vegetation all over Earth responds and new vegetation zones develop on the warmer Earth and themselves alter temperature and as the Antarctic ice sheet gets back into long-term balance (which takes several thousand years, that ice sheet took like hundreds of thousand of years or a couple million to build up). Of the 31 PALEOSENS proxy analyses 25 of them show in the past a response of 2.2 to 4.4 degrees from CO2 doubling.
@jimthain8777 yes it's roughly like this in degrees over 400 years as the ocean responds 85%:
100% 1.01 CO2*2 basic Planck response
110% 1.11 H2O gas increase (very big effect) less the lapse rate reduction which is a sizeable effect canceling out some warming.
25% 0.25 Arctic ocean Spring-Summer ice gone
25% 0.25 Arctic land Spring-Summer snow gone
30% 0.30 Similar for the south polar (sea ice, no land effect)
70% 0.70 Cloud changes (but this one is the Joker, could be quite a bit smaller or larger)
----------
3.6 degrees total over 400 years (another 0.5 degrees total over 1,600 years but really who cares ?)
I recently completed my geology course and was looking to review geo-atmospheric topics. Wow, you covered several technical aspects I missed! (e.g. troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere and its history.) Great descriptions of complex details of albedo, ozone and the greenhouse effect of IR radiative forcing via Co2, CH4, N2O, and H2O. --You definitely help us grasp these concepts more fully.
As a music major, may I suggest listening to Vangelis' excellent song "Albedo 0.39" --truly cosmic music with science narration.
czcams.com/video/U0GbxHcIJgM/video.html
I understand the situation with your cat. I have two of them.
Thats how we formed just like the earth from components like the earth all the universe including earth is biological not geological when everyone understands that then they will know where and how we became too crazy huh makes you think what school and college taught us is total bs huh but who am i to teach this lol love you geo girl i know you know this ❤
You obviously don't know a damn thing about science
@@whatabouttheearth haha you dont bro but whatever your acedemia and mad cause you cant prove me wrong ok what am i wrong about care to explain cmon ill be waiting
@@ANCIENTASTRONAUT411
Well, I could prove you wrong, but I currently can't because you have the utterly incoherent composition skills of a four year old.
You obviously have never even studied basic chemistry.
Your word salad is almost incomprehensible. Did you not learn how to write proper sentences in school?
@@lamaglama6231 did you? Did you learn real science i didnt but i had to teach mi self bro ba ba ba black sheep lil bo beep lost her sheep lmao
Too bad most people don't have the attention span to finish these videos, but I wished more of the general population would learn more about geology at school.
For example this summer and winter... we already have a bunch of bozos yell climate change is not backed by research, because we had a single cold winter in the past 20 years. The stupidity is just unmeasurable when I try to explain some that with climate change not the entire earth is going to warm up equally.
But I guess these people have never looked at the earth from satellites or even the Blue Marble from NASA. They simply do not understand our atmosphere is just a teeny tiny layer blanketing our planet that in comparison is massively larger than you can understand by looking at the horizon 5km in the distance or looking up at the clouds reaching up the same distance!
That is how I wake up in the morning, my cat taking up half the bed and three quarters of my blanket!
interesting in the discovered systems where gas giants close to the sun does it mean that there is no rocky planets there...
PS cat occupation 😀
There was no oxygen to susttain human life back when co2 levels were so high historically so that's wrongfully assumption
is it jus me or is she affextin a lower pitch in this one. *extremely distracted.*
People still falling for the CO2 warming nonsense?
Science moves on from well established conclusions to areas of less certainty such as quantifying AGW in the presence of large feedbacks like clouds and water vapour. Anthropogenic global warming is hardly the most important or interesting area of climate research because it is occurring and is settled. i.e., it’s a baseline. Just as evolution is the baseline for evolutionary biology.
@@rps1689 Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’:
"William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data."
@@303Scott Lindzen’s job is lying about science; his opinion carries negative weight.
Happer like Lindzen retired from science decades ago to become anti-science activists for hire. Happer was a particle physicist, not an atmospheric physicist. They both have zero credibility in climate science today. Happer has been lying about scientific consensus for quite some time and his claims about satellite data are still cherry-picked and out of date. He is no different than those from science that were PR flacks for the tobacco industry.
You should see Andy Dessler mopping the floor with Lindzen in a debate just over eleven years ago. No wonder Lindzen won't take on top leading working scientists let alone his own colleagues, which are embarrassed of him.
Global circulation models project broad cones representing an infinite set of possible future temperature trends, and when they are fed historical emissions, the cones they project enclose the historical observations. That's why when liars like Lindzen and Happer set out to convince you that "the models are wrong," they never show you the cone. They’ll show you a squiggly line drawn down the middle of the cone. This intentional deception is obvious to educated people, but not to those that know nothing about numerical modelling.
All numerical models of real world phenomena are always repeatedly wrong so to speak, but that doesn’t mean they are useless in the hands of experts who understand them well enough to know their limits, which is why there hasn’t been a failed prediction from modern climate science, and climate projections have been accurate for fifty years. No lack of predictions on track. The general circulation models are right enough to project future climate trends to usable accuracy and usable confidence. Your reply raises the question; have you made any effort to find out how well the models that scientists use actually work? There are many examples where we predict and design things from models that are repeatedly wrong so to speak that work the first time they are used; space telescopes and chips with billions of transistors in them come to mind to name a few.
Look up.
Performance of Past Climate Model Projections," Geophysical Research Letters. You will notice from the figures, observations are inside the projection cones.
BTW, Lindzen is a washout who hasn't published any fresh research in climate science in over 30 years. Just like he used to lie that tobacco smoking carried no health risks, Lindzen is a professional liar and lies about the impacts and causes of global warming. He's is not a current climate expert by any measure. This is the guy that misquoted Phil Jones, ignores the planet’s thermal inertia and cooling effect of aerosols when arguing about radiative forcing’s effect on warming, brings up the rate of warming happening over a few or several years when he knows damn well that it takes 30 years for climate trends to show, tells half truths about the extent of sea ice in the arctic, avoids mentioning delayed and paused warming when arguing about the tipping points that are likely to be crossed, lies about how a few degrees have no substantial impact on ice sheets and sea level, implies that scientists ignore the water vapour in their analysis yet he never mentions that water vapour is a feedback, not a primary forcing, and has tried to convince people that there was widespread concern in science of cooling in the 70s when the scientific consensus was warming. It's telling when Cato hire folk like Lindzen. He has perfected the gimmick of lending his name to the occasional paper. It gets his name in the refereed literature every few years.
You might want to evaluate your sources for bias and credibility and avoid crack pot outfits. Best to stick with those top leading working scientists that actively publish in competitive high-impact science journals; not professional liars like Lindzen and Happer. Heck there are better liars than them, Christy comes to mind.
@@rps1689 AGW is not settled. The 'greenhouse effect' has never been measured or observed. It is simply a hypothesis, not a baseline. When you think that 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, and that only 3% of the 0.04% is man-made, you realize that the entire AGW hypothesis is ridiculous.
@@303Scott AGW is past the point of a hypothesis. All attempts to refute the hypothesis have failed a no one yet has busted the added greenhouse effect theory. Anyone that does, will be the biggest name in science since Einstein and the next rock star of applied physics.
Atmospheric CO2 was about 50% less about 170 years ago than what it is today. Now it is 0.04 percent and then it was 0.02 percent. That rate of increase is due to human activity.
Human activity is warming the Earth about 20 times faster than during the ice age transition. If you could refute that, or any of the principal findings from mainstream climate science, you'd be a very famous person; a Nobel Prize awaits you; not the Nobel Peace Prize, which is always political, but that of a Nobel Prize in physics.
ALLUMINUIM SILICATE AKA HUMAN SKIN IRON COPPER GOLD H20 CALCUIM AKA BONES SALIN SALT OH I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A HUMAN BODY BUT YOUR TALKING ABOUT THE EARTH LOL SAME COMPONENTS WERE MADE OF HAHAHA JUST BEING A TURD 😅
You can stop the jibber jabber now. We're sated.
Biotic organism are composed of abiotic elements because the abiotic elements came first.
The biotic organisms consume the elements of the biogeochemical cycles.
All these elements were made in stars except early hydrogen and helium.
Study real science and stop being ignorant.
Enough is enough with you charlatan gullible fools who promote ignorance as a virtue.
Geo girl? More like atmos-female...
I made myself cringe.
Watch your language
Taste your hearing
We all love her, that we can agree@@whatabouttheearth
at the beginning of our eon (the Phanerozoic) CO₂ was 4,500 ppm
11 times today’s level
it dropped until it ranged between 1,700 ppm and 1,950 ppm during the Mesozoic era (when the dinosaurs lived)
and continued to drop, reaching a 540 million year low during our current major ice age (which has been going for 2.6 million years - so far)
the Warming Alarmist argument is that some of the lowest CO₂ levels in 542 million years are causing rapid global warming
the lowest CO₂ levels in 542 million years can cause global warming
but they will cause the least amount of global warming in 542 million years (from CO₂)
No one is climate science is saying it the lowest levels that are causing rapid warming, It is the rate that is.
Brings to mind Henry's Law describes equilibrium conditions, but. Climate “skeptics” love to to bring up Henry’s Law when going on about how CO2 lags temperature when it does, but not when it doesn’t; trying to make an argument that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. But any one familiar with basic atmospheric physics knows Henry’s Law doesn’t apply now because there is no equilibrium now because human activity has disrupted the equilibrium, which is why oceans are absorbing too much CO2 now because the partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the air than in the ocean. Henry's Law will not apply again until equilibrium is restored.
Let’s start with the fact that one can observe a noncondensing greenhouse gas in the lab as we shine different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation on it that, and can measure its absorption spectrum. There is a big spot at around 15 microns, which happens to be in the band of the Earth's surface's black-body radiation; you must have learned about black-body radiation in high school physics. If so, you know one can measure how much the gas warms up with a given energy input; also measure the absorption band across sunlight. Back to the 15 microns - long wave infrared warms the CO2 and sunlight warms it much less. Science has discovered that CO2 absorbs earthshine way better than it absorbs sunshine; note water vapour has a similar property. Of course that’s not all, we have to calculate how fast long wave infrared radiation, i.e., earthshine, makes it to space when it is getting absorbed and reemitted and absorbed and reemitted over and over. It is way slower than the incoming sunshine, which is basically unimpeded. When the Earth is in thermal equilibrium with space, that difference in transmission rate warms the surface - the greenhouse effect. This effect was discovered almost 200 years ago by a mathematician.
Combining the discoveries of the absorption spectra of gases and the greenhouse effect and the knowledge provided by them, we know adding greenhouse gas from agriculture, forestry, and during fossil fuels increases the imbalance between how fast energy goes in and comes out. That is the enhanced greenhouse effect. "Proven" by direct observation and simple mathematics.
If you care nothing about the quality of life that human beings experience then there's no need to be alarmed about CO₂ levels at all...
@@soltari2007
humans are animals
animals eat plants
plants eat CO₂
more CO₂ = more plants = more animals
= more humans