Evidence for Climate Change: The Physics of Climate Change
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2018
- See how greenhouse gases absorb infrared light through a controlled experiment that uses thermal imaging. This shorter version of the full resource video ( • Evidence for Climate C... ) allows students to develop their ideas from observation.
This video is part of Perimeter Institute's free educational resource Evidence for Climate Change. Download the teacher's guide, modifiable worksheets, and supporting materials at: resources.perimeterinstitute....
Perimeter's educational outreach programs and resources like these are made possible in part thanks to our donors. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/donate. - Наука та технологія
Amazing experiment I didn't knew before that ch4 blocks the infrared light
Keep bringing such things it's marvellous......
Thanks for leaving the question open. I'd conclude that the nitrogen and oxygen did not obstruct heat, but the carbon dioxide and methane did.
Hi, this is a very interesting and simple video explaining the complex process of climate change well.
If you're a moron that is
You forgot to demonstrate the heat trapping character of water vapor?
www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
@@jacdale www.wired.com/story/an-illicit-chemical-is-again-jeopardizing-the-ozone-layer/
@@dutchflats CFCs' and HFCs are also GHGs.
www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/fluorinated-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Likewise, the degree of heat trapping may depend on the concentration of gas (not demonstrated). From what I understand, the effect of CO2 tappers off at higher percentages.
I'm glad they were able to prove the transparent gases were not the two that are in abundance, N & O.
would like to see the experiment whit H2O
If greenhouse effect is not real, then how can you explain venus?
Nitrogen & Oxygen are Transparent, Carbon Dioxide & Methane are not Transparent.....great educational video from you lovely friends in Canada ☺👍:)
N2 and O2 are not transparent to IR.
@@zoephin6205 they are transparent! I done the experiment?
Notts boy24
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
Thanks for providing the links! the question was in the video 'which atmospheric gases are transparent to infrared light' we do know N2 and O2 are transparent to incoming radiation but they are also transparent to outgoing radiation. Carbon Dioxide & Methane are not transparent as they trap the outgoing radiation. Simple greenhouse gases at work there :)
www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
Notts boy24
That's a propaganda page. You need to learn real science, not advocacy of ideology.
N2 and O2 readily absorb IR.
A good demonstration in isolation, but with fatal flaws compared to how the atmosphere actually works that misleads the simple. The experiment has plastic wrappers over the top, obviously to keep the gases in the jars for the lab, but in the atmosphere there is no plastic wrapper to space. i.e there is convection. Another is that CO2 levels are currently relatively saturated, so adding CO2 makes very little difference to temperature. Another is that the primary GHG in the atmosphere is H20, at substantially higher concentrations than CO2 which overlaps the absorption bands of CO2, hence reducing the absorptive effect of CO2 in isolation. As a climate scientist like all I would agree that CO2 does absorb (and Rayleigh scatters) IR radiation, but there is an insurmountable jump between this and saying CO2 emissions (of which 96%+ are natural) are the primary cause of global warming, and another insurmountable jump to say that increased CO2 (which causes global greening) or warming of the planet is on the whole detrimental. The last century of co-incidental increases in both have seen the greatest flourishing of humans, decline in weather related deaths by 99%+ and improvements in the environment. The last insurmountable jump is that going NetZero by government decree will assist humanity or the environment, when there is ample evidence already of the opposite, e.g. clearing the Amazon, burning and clearing of millions of acres forests for biofuels and to install unreliable energy sources like wind farms. Unfortunately this experiments title is a con that fools those who only have a cursory understanding of the subject. If anything we need more CO2 in the atmosphere as most plants evolved when it was over 1000ppm and are starving for it. This title implying CO2 has caused Climate change is nonsense.
L take on climate change
The sunlight that strikes the surface of the Earth is visible light and infrared radiation (long wave radiation commonly known as heat). The visible light that is not reflected is converted into heat (infrared radiation) and radiated back towards space. Large moleculed trace gases such as carbon dioxide hinder easy passage of this long wave radiation and heat increases in the lower atmosphere.
Well, that is a very tricky "experiment". How many ppm were in that cylinder? More important the discussion is not if CO2 traps energy...it cant re-irradiate it back to the surface because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and it even reduces the outflow of infrared energy. According to NOAA's measurements the outgoing infrared radiation has been pretty steady at 235 W/m2.
So we should research what is going on...¡politcs aside!
It can be concluded that there will be more infrared light in the atmosphere in the case of nitrogen and oxygen, but there will be less infrared light in the atmosphere if it is trapped by greenhouse gases.
So,
Why do you explain the increase of infrared in the atmosphere with the gases that absorb infrared, and not the opposite? This true science experiment, it just need a little common sense to come to different conclusions.
hold it. this is fishy. you didn't say the concentrations of each gas. plus you didn't show a control case of regular atmosphere. i wonder if there would be no visible change? because that is exactly what we want to know. how much of an effect does 0.04 per cent CO2 have? for all you science wannabes commenting don't you have to consider partial pressure in physics? each component's effect is weighted by its proportion.
Nice experiment but it was done over 100 yrs ago, Co2 alone cannot account for current warming it requires feed back loops using h2o as all models use, do you have any evidence that the feed back loops work as the models suggest?
This is just an excerpt from a larger resource that does consider other forcings, although CO2 alone does provide significant forcing
Beakers filled with 100% of a gas when the atmosphere measures in ppm nice start but needs additional evidence.
Dave, CO2 has minimal forcing which should be clear by now. We are cooling, there is more ice than the past several years, and CO2 has never correlated to temperature.
@@jmuld1 this is just an excerpt showing the basic mechanism. We then look at atmospheric data and see the same effect
Rolf Jander
A correlation study. Temperature lead co2, in actuality.
just "warming" not "getting warmer" ?
Nitrogen & Oxygen are Transparent ☺
Notts boy24
Not true
@@zoephin6205 ☺ provide the evidence!
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif
Good thing we will never see the blocking shown in the video. We will only ever see .3 degrees of warming from CO2. Considering the planet is cooling, this shows negligable effect from CO2 and direct correlation to the sun.
The Earth is not cooling
climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/
@@jacdale lol, believe what you want. I will follow reality. Not sure where you are from, but I guarantee you haven't done any personal research like I have for years.
@@gsmscrazycanuck9814 Wrong on all counts.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 7535 (2015)
Abstract
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.
www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
@@gsmscrazycanuck9814 I will follow science. I showed you some of mine. Show me yours.
@@jacdale you didn't show me yours. You just parroted the AGW propaganda. I gave the data of how much heating you could expect from CO2 based on experiments that all alarmists know about that show how much heat CO2 traps. This is based on CO2 heating being linear, which some scientists say isn't the case. What is your observations proving warming? All I see is cooling over historical values.
Now we just need to convince the neo-cons.
It's not just neo cons that have a problem with climate change hysteria. And overwhelming it's not climate change itself that's the objection, it's hysteria. There have been many dated predictions of catastrophy over the last 50 years, and 100% of them have been wrong. There are current predictions hanging out there about the ice caps and coastal flooding and polar bears, and those will be wrong too. I know that, because no one has made any corrections to their modeling methods. And most of all, the models have all been wrong in the same direction. They always predict catastrophy, because that's what they're designed to do. Find me a dated prediction of catastrophy that came true. Why doesn't it bother you that none have? The truth is that you believe in a hysterical end-of-the-world cult like hale-bop or Jim Jones, except world wide. Cults always seem to end the same way sadly.
At 410 ppm, this is academic....1,000,000 ppm of CO2 or CH4 does not occur in our atmosphere!
One cause for the escalation of extreme weather events is simple...less trees in the tropics each year....less to absorb the suns radiation = tropical warming (NOT GLOBAL WARMING!). Higher temperature around the tropics = more moisture evaporated from the oceans producing much warmer denser and increased cloud production (hence more flooding in tropics where tree cover is reduced).....then more and denser ‘tropical rainforest clouds’ carrying more moisture escape the tropics as intense heat on cleared land creates lift to allow these clouds to escape the tropics on trade winds...hence cooling effect away from the tropics as cloud cover increases and increased rain and snow fall away from the tropics, whilst extra cloud cover also traps the extra heat travelling up from the tropics.....Less trees in the tropics each year = less biomass to sequester the CO2’....As the ocean warms, the warmer seas travel north to the Arctic and south to the Antarctic...as warmer air from the tropics travels north and south.... air is warmer in the Arctic and in the Antarctic....simples!’ To make matters worse, the Amazon is sinking south and the trees in Indonesia and the Philippines are moving north with the current pole shift, helping to warm the tropics even more.
The warmer air and seas distorts the position of the jet stream pushing it north towards west Canada and north towards the UK but there is a counteractive force pushing the jet stream south at these points as a result of the increase in cloud cover escaping the Tropics which cools some areas of the ocean through reduced radiation from the sun.
Otherwise could have been a nice theory!
Try a tube of air!
Look up cloud neucleation and cosmic rays. Look up the sun's effect on the jet stream. Look up Maunder Minimum.
ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Haha! "Evidence" for climate change? Yeesh..
Global warming was the hoax, wait till you figure the why..
just think of 180, not in temperature but direction..
Research "Grand Solar Minimum" instead..
Yes, it’s an amazing hoax. But how did they get nature to cooperate for over 50 years now, when temperatures had been relatively flat for 100 years before that, and even slightly cooling for thousands of years before?
static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Shakun_Marcott_HadCRUT4_A1B_500.png
@@cloudpoint0 What year does that red line fly past 3c? Also, how did they get temp records before there were temp records? And don't say ice cores or tree rings, they don't give global or any actual temp data, they give rough co2 info. Not the same thing. Global temp records are just slightly older than the idea of global warming. So, where was the data on this graph sourced from?
@@vatofat
We passed 1C around 2010. 1.5C will happen around 2040. 2C will be in the 2060s. 3C will certainly happen by 2100, but it could be 4C or even 5C depending on how much warming accelerates due to tipping points and feedbacks during the remainder of this century. I’d bet on 4C. This assumes we continue our evil ways.
There are so many proxies for temperature that I can’t list them all (some are land and marine bore holes, vegetation remains, fossil record, cave drippings, corals, ocean/lake sentiments, ice cores, tree rings, precipitation measures, infilling, etc.). These provide temperature data going back millions of years. Yet another recent proxy for temperature is a thermometer reading if it is adjusted and cleaned up before using for climate purposes. The main problem with a thermometer is it gives a moment in time reading rather than a smeared measure of temperature over time. Climate is about smeared measures (longer term averages). Moment in time readings aren’t terribly useful until many data points are aggregated and averaged. Other proxies give us what we want automatically.
Ice cores provide both CO2 (precisely, not rough) and temperature data. Ice cores weren’t really used here since the intent was to construct a global record. Tree rings provide very good temperature data but not CO2 data, as long as the climate is unchanging in terms of precipitation and other non-temperature climate factors.
The older data on the graph is sourced from 73 locations worldwide. Each data point represents an average of many years, not just one year, about 120 years. That’s short enough resolution to be sure no prior episodes of sustained global warming were missed in the constructed record. The graph-makers actually have more data for older dates (marine archives) than newer dates (tree rings, which are only good for up to 1000 years).
If you want to know these things, why not just read the paper? It’s just 4 or 5 pages long.
www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data
how bout some evidence if this cock in yo mom
Another think tank that can't think. What about Gravity, and Adiabatic Effect? Ever heard of Enthalpy?
Questioning whether they have thought about gravity at the Perimeter Institute? ROTFLMAO!
Gavin Cawley
Then why do they rely on IPCC flat-earth no gravity model? What causes the lapse rate? They subsitute effect of gravity with radiative forcing. That's how the climate scam works.
Gravity can heat a gas only once, when it converts (gravitational) potential energy into kinetic energy, that only happens if the atmosphere is still shrinking (as it is on Jupiter, but not the Earth). The idea that gravity continually heats the atmosphere (as some climate skeptics claim) is a non-starter because it would violate the first law of thermodynamics. This is a basic intro for children, so of course it omits some details. If you want to learn more, try reading some of the historical papers, conveniently collected here www.wiley.com/en-gb/The+Warming+Papers%3A+The+Scientific+Foundation+for+the+Climate+Change+Forecast-p-9781405196161 . The basic mechanisms have been well understood for over a century.
Gavin Cawley
Gravity doesn't Heat gas at all. It raises temperature via Work.
As I said, gravity can only cause a rise in temperature by a conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy, and that can only happen once, unless work is done to raise the parcel of gas again (e.g. convection). Thus it is a zero-sum game. The work done by gravity is equal to the work done raising the parcel of air (which was done *against* gravity).
Another fake science video saying the tea would cool to room temperature.