As a non-scientist, I'm puzzled by Dr. ingersoll's remark at about 10:15 regarding the relative scarcity of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. I thought we were all supposed to be obsessing about its excess presence.
There are tiny amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Like less than 0.01%. however the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has almost doubled (if not more) in the last 200 years (or since the onset of the industrial revolution). This is solely causes by humans, in a timeframe outside the limits of nature.
Excessive measurements can be calculated in fraction percentage. Even though the number doesn't look big it is an extremely delicate parameter to senselessly meddling and adjusting.
@BGTuyau This is all correct. Used to be around 0.03%, and now we're over 0.04%. As Sagan said: "Our lives depend on a delicate balance of invisible gases that are minor components of the Earth's atmosphere. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing." Here's his larger quote: "The reflected sunlight, of course, is mainly in the visible part of the spectrum. So set the input (which depends on how much sunlight the Earth absorbs) equal to the output (which depends on the temperature of the Earth), balance the two sides of the equation, and out comes the predicted temperature of the Earth. A cinch! Couldn't be easier! You calculate it, and what's the answer? Our calculation tells us that the average temperature of the Earth should be about 20° Celsius below the freezing point of water. The oceans ought to be blocks of ice and we all ought to be frozen stiff. The Earth should be inhospitable to almost all forms of life. What's wrong with the calculation? Did we make a mistake? We didn't exactly make a mistake in the calculation. We just left something out: the greenhouse effect. We implicitly assumed that the Earth had no atmosphere. While the air is transparent at ordinary visible wavelengths (except for places like Denver and Los Angeles), it's much more opaque in the thermal infrared part of the spectrum, where the Earth likes to radiate to space. And that makes all the difference in the world. Some of the gases in the air in front of us-carbon dioxide, water vapor, some oxides of nitrogen, methane, chlorofluorocarbons-happen to absorb strongly in the infrared, even though they are completely transparent in the visible. If you put a layer of this stuff at>ove the surface of the Earth, the sunlight still gets in. But when the surface tries to radiate back to space, the way is impeded by this blanket of infrared absorbing gases. It's transparent in the visible, semi-opaque in the infrared. As a result the Earth has to warm up some, to achieve the equilibrium between the sunlight coming in and the infrared radiation emitted out. If you calculate how opaque these gases are in the infrared, how much of the Earth's body heat they intercept, you come out with the right answer. You find that on average- averaged over seasons, latitude, and time of day-the Earth's surface must be some 13°C above zero. This is why the oceans don't freeze, why the climate is congenial for our species and our civilization. Our lives depend on a delicate balance of invisible gases that are minor components of the Earth's atmosphere. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing. But if you add more greenhouse gases-as we have been doing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution-you absorb more infrared radiation. You make that blanket thicker. You warm the Earth further. "
Why is it that nobody has thought about taking one of the satellites that take pictures of other stars in the galaxy and turning it towards the Earth and take a picture of the Earth? The Hubble telescope takes pictures of the whole universe and they can't turn it around so I can take a picture of the Earth to prove that the Earth is round and not flat!
There are a lot of satellites facing the Earth and taking photos of our planet every day. For instance, visit meteosat web site and download them. And by the way, all of them show our planet is not flat, although this doesn't matter to the flat Earth theory followers, of course.
Damn, wish I could see a picture of the earth from space. Why are there no pictures of the earth from space? And yet there are pictures. What are you getting at?
Have you seen the "Pale Blue Dot" image of earth taken by voyagers which changed the view of of humanity... Your problem is that you are a flat earther
There are countless photos of the earth taken from space. Strangely not one shows a flat earth, because it’s round.. Start at Apollo 8 Christmas 1968. But you got on believing something that humans know is wrong since the Greeks over 2000 years ago.
What a pair of legends. Carl and Andy
I wasn't even born yet
Great piece of history
As a non-scientist, I'm puzzled by Dr. ingersoll's remark at about 10:15 regarding the relative scarcity of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. I thought we were all supposed to be obsessing about its excess presence.
There are tiny amounts of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Like less than 0.01%. however the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has almost doubled (if not more) in the last 200 years (or since the onset of the industrial revolution). This is solely causes by humans, in a timeframe outside the limits of nature.
@@derykball8495 And therefore ...
Excessive measurements can be calculated in fraction percentage. Even though the number doesn't look big it is an extremely delicate parameter to senselessly meddling and adjusting.
@BGTuyau This is all correct. Used to be around 0.03%, and now we're over 0.04%.
As Sagan said: "Our lives depend on a delicate balance of invisible gases that are minor components of the Earth's atmosphere. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing."
Here's his larger quote:
"The reflected sunlight, of course, is mainly in the visible part of the spectrum. So set the input (which depends on how much sunlight the Earth absorbs) equal to the output (which depends on the temperature of the Earth), balance the two sides of the equation, and out comes the predicted temperature of the Earth. A cinch! Couldn't be easier! You calculate it, and what's the answer?
Our calculation tells us that the average temperature of the Earth should be about 20° Celsius below the freezing point of water. The oceans ought to be blocks of ice and we all ought to be frozen stiff. The Earth should be inhospitable to almost all forms of life. What's wrong with the calculation? Did we make a mistake?
We didn't exactly make a mistake in the calculation. We just left something out: the greenhouse effect. We implicitly assumed that the Earth had no atmosphere. While the air is transparent at ordinary visible wavelengths (except for places like Denver and Los Angeles), it's much more opaque in the thermal infrared part of the spectrum, where the Earth likes to radiate to space. And that makes all the difference in the world. Some of the gases in the air in front of us-carbon dioxide, water vapor, some oxides of nitrogen, methane, chlorofluorocarbons-happen to absorb strongly in the infrared, even though they are completely transparent in the visible. If you put a layer of this stuff at>ove the surface of the Earth, the sunlight still gets in. But when the surface tries to radiate back to space, the way is impeded by this blanket of infrared absorbing gases. It's transparent in the visible, semi-opaque in the infrared. As a result the Earth has to warm up some, to achieve the equilibrium between the sunlight coming in and the infrared radiation emitted out. If you calculate how opaque these gases are in the infrared, how much of the Earth's body heat they intercept, you come out with the right answer. You find that on average- averaged over seasons, latitude, and time of day-the Earth's surface must be some 13°C above zero. This is why the oceans don't freeze, why the climate is congenial for our species and our civilization.
Our lives depend on a delicate balance of invisible gases that are minor components of the Earth's atmosphere. A little greenhouse effect is a good thing. But if you add more greenhouse gases-as we have been doing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution-you absorb more infrared radiation. You make that blanket thicker. You warm the Earth further.
"
Carl Sagan: ok so here's facts...
The interview feels a bit like an interrogation of some sort lol
Helmet
Why is it that nobody has thought about taking one of the satellites that take pictures of other stars in the galaxy and turning it towards the Earth and take a picture of the Earth? The Hubble telescope takes pictures of the whole universe and they can't turn it around so I can take a picture of the Earth to prove that the Earth is round and not flat!
There are a lot of satellites facing the Earth and taking photos of our planet every day. For instance, visit meteosat web site and download them. And by the way, all of them show our planet is not flat, although this doesn't matter to the flat Earth theory followers, of course.
Damn, wish I could see a picture of the earth from space. Why are there no pictures of the earth from space? And yet there are pictures. What are you getting at?
Have you seen the "Pale Blue Dot" image of earth taken by voyagers which changed the view of of humanity... Your problem is that you are a flat earther
What is this comment lol must be trolling
There are countless photos of the earth taken from space. Strangely not one shows a flat earth, because it’s round..
Start at Apollo 8 Christmas 1968.
But you got on believing something that humans know is wrong since the Greeks over 2000 years ago.
102 66 google j 7 h 66 102