Why trace gasses matter
Added 2024-08-21 02:58:57 +0000 UTCA mixture of gasses will always absorb more light than any of them alone. It's like stacking color filters.
Comments
CO2 isnt an issue at all. Redo the calculations
Isaac
2024-08-27 20:12:06 +0000 UTCCO2 is logarithmic in its function of energy entrapment.. its not the cause of climate change… The Sun The Ocean #1 and #2 influences
Isaac
2024-08-27 20:11:21 +0000 UTCMight try to describe it a s a blanket with holes. you stack several blankets with holes more of the common holes get blocked and you are warmer. We just need to get some self replicating diamond based solar nanobots dusting our upper atmosphere and shading the planet.
Adric Menning
2024-08-26 07:05:18 +0000 UTCOoh, that's something I never considered at all! Very interesting! So this means that it's by far not just CO2 that's the issue? In fact, it seems to cover only a relatively small part of the IR spectrum. Then why are we seemingly primarily focused on reducing CO2? Edit: After some quick googling the answer is that how much something contributes to climate change isn't just a function of how well it blocks infrared, but also how long it stays in the atmosphere (water usually comes down again after a couple weeks) and how much we put out there (while trace amounts have an effect, we're still talking about a big-ass planet here). I feel this context is quite relevant to this video! And an unrelated hint: If you want the overlaid graphs to be a bit more readable, image editors can make a specific color transparent (e.g. in Gimp: Colors -> Color to Alpha...).
Sam
2024-08-22 15:14:01 +0000 UTCThis is an excellent premise for a video. It's a good first shot at explaining it, but it needs a lot more polish to be clear to people who otherwise wouldn't already understand it.
MattsAwesomeStuff
2024-08-22 06:09:37 +0000 UTCOh I didn't realize. This is what came up when I searched water vapor.
CodyDon Reeder
2024-08-21 20:11:56 +0000 UTCNice explaining this! Sorry for nitpicking, but you are showing the spectrum for liquid water and not steam/vapor. It does not matter for the general message, but it's just an occupational hazard here as I'm working with NDIR stuff.
Moggen
2024-08-21 20:10:56 +0000 UTCNice, great explanation. I checked what my go-to book on global warming says on this, confirming the point: " There was already so much CO2 in the air that the spectral bands where it absorbed radiation were already quite opaque, so you had to add a lot more of the gas to make a serious difference. A few moments' thought would have told any scientist that it was otherwise for trace gases. Each additional wisp of these would help obscure a "window," a region of the spectrum that otherwise would have let radiation through unhindered. But the simple is not always obvious until someone points it out. Understanding took a while to spread. Well into the 1980s, the public, government agencies, and even most scientists thought "global warming" was essentially synonymous with "increasing CO2." Meanwhile, many thousands of tons of other greenhouse gases were pouring into the atmosphere. " From "The Discovery of Global Warming" available free online. https://history.aip.org/climate/othergas.htm
A H
2024-08-21 07:24:37 +0000 UTCAs you said on Twitter (x) it's like adding a filter layer, and at the end of the day, the more layers you add, the more it blocks, the more heat gets trapped (since IR is essentially heat) Very succinct explanation, I wonder why all these climate change guys harp on about carbon dioxide though, if it's a combination of gasses that is actually doing it? (Surely, more trees absorbing the CO2 would end up releasing more water vapor?, so, we can't win. )
Daniel Crusoe
2024-08-21 05:21:21 +0000 UTC
