Sixty Symbols - 2018-08-20
The Greenhouse Effect (which is not how greenhouses work). More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓ Featuring Professor Michael Merrifield. More weather videos with Mike: http://bit.ly/Weather_Videos Professor Merrifield on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AstroMikeMerri The Unmade Podcast: https://www.unmade.fm Hello Internet Podcast: http://www.hellointernet.fm Objectivity: http://bit.ly/Objectivity Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sixtysymbols Discuss this video on Brady's subreddit: https://redd.it/98uxco Visit our website at http://www.sixtysymbols.com/ We're on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/sixtysymbols And Twitter at http://twitter.com/sixtysymbols This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham http://bit.ly/NottsPhysics Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran Additional animation in this video by Alison Williams. http://www.bradyharanblog.com Some footage courtesy of AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/ Email list: http://eepurl.com/YdjL9
why telephone rings every time sunbeam hits a surface :D
What? You never heard it before around you in sunny days?! Damn you've been distracted..
it has a similar sound to my alarm
Everyone knows the phone rings every time you get into the shower
It's science
took me like 3min into the video to realize that
It's electromagnetic interference combined with the poleshift affecting the phone lines. It's because stars don't have hydrogen fusion, you can read in my English book The British Steam Universe.
This was really insightful since I've never really considered the actual mathematics that goes behind the greenhouse effect.
This was a really interesting video. Thanks for making this!
@Ferrusian Gambit You're absolutely right.
We should not believe it until we get a grip of what math is behing it to be fair
@Zacharie Etienne If I may suggest a simple experiment. Take a saucerful of water and place it on your dining table (or other safe, exposed place). Observe the water level every day. You will notice that the water levels drops until it has all disappeared, without temperature getting to 100 C.
There is an equilibrium between water in its liquid and gas phases, defined by the saturated vapour pressure (SVP), which increases with temperature*. At SVP (aka Equilibrium vapour pressure), the water molecules move from liquid to gas phase and in the reverse direction at the same rate. When the air surrounding your saucer is not saturated with water vapour, i.e. the actual vapour pressure < SVP, this equilibrium has not been reached, i.e. the rate of liquid to gas > gas to liquid ==> water will evaporate from the saucer. If the air were saturated, and the temperature were to fall, actual vapour pressure > SVP, and you would get dew, i.e. the rate of gas to liquid > liquid to gas.
When the saturated vapour pressure equals the atmospheric pressure, the water (or other liquid in question) will boil. When /if you use a pressure cooker, you are increasing the atmospheric pressure around the water in your cooker. So the temperature at which the SVP equals the atmospheric pressure increases ==> it boils at above 100 C, and your food gets cooked faster.
* Because the kinetic energy of a gas molecule is directly proportional to its temperature (in Kelvin).
@Zacharie Etienne That would be an interesting science snippet. The " Robin Swamidasan" explains it in this thread but note also that the video you suggest would include how can it possibly be that water can NOT evaporate at the bottom of a pot on the stove or a kettle when the water surface temperature reaches your "100 degrees" and all the heat is going in at the bottom so bottom is hottest yet it's the top that boils. It's the experimental proof of " Robin Swamidasan" every single time a person boils a kettle or pot of water.
@Ferrusian Gambit Precisely correct and my own observation these last 7 years. The rubbishy cartoons are successfully attacked by these <essentially species-level criminals> because the cartoons are rubbishy but can then be stated incorrectly as being the actual vast body of science.
the sun is a deadly lazer
A flat eather might say:
Flat earth model used to explain greenhouse effect... so greenhouse effect proves the earth is flat!
Classic cause & effect reversal. It's the Earth getting flatter (not fatter) that causes global warming, not the greenhouse effect that's been making the Earth flat as claimed.
Wait -- so when the neighbor leans on the fence and makes small talk about the weather... he's really talking about physics?
As LONG as HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE COLD NITROXY BATH REMOVING 29% FROM TEMPERATURE CALCULATION of the PLANET he IS.
When he SAYS hE dun THUNKA COLD GAS BATH WUZZA HEEDUR - no, he's just an ignorant hick from "Pot's like Heroin cause the guvurmint min dun sed so" country.
Professor Merrifield has a clear way of describing most everything. The way he built up the topic was great!
@DANG JOS CO2 is highly emissive it adsorbs and re-radiates in the IR part of the spectrum we know as heat in about 0.00001 seconds.
Imagine a vat of boiling water and stuff and there are two ladles in it. One wood the other copper. The Copper is highly emissive It will adsorb and re-radiate the heat .. a fact you will notice if you grab it , the wood not so much. Neither ladle will heat the vat , in fact the copper one will help cool it faster by transferring the heat from the vat to the ladle to the air or your hand. The same as more CO2 in the upper atmosphere cools it faster.
Because I believe in science and the scientific method ..
I want to see an experiment that demonstrates doubling the CO2 concentration does raise the temp 2 or more degrees.
@Martin TFREE You're confusing your terms. Copper has a higher conductivity than wood, not emissivity.
@DANG JOS not at all ..
I am giving an analogy copper and copper has both traits as electrical conductor and as thermal conductor
To be more specific I would point to experiments where
There is a heat source (Light bulb) in a chamber and it is tested in several environments -- a vacuum, "non" green house gas (say Aragon) , and a third one with that global warming gas CO2 .. which one is the bulb the hottest .. which one is it the coolest? why
@Martin TFREE I'm pretty sure you're going to say the carbon dioxide one is the coolest because of its higher heat capacity (thanks to rotational and vibrational states). And vacuum is the hottest due to no loss from heat conduction. What point would you be making though?
oh .. Before I forget the captain Obvious point ..
an experiment that simulates Green house with no air , neutral air, pure CO2 global warming green house gas air ..
and the Green house with the green house gas it the coldest not the hottest ..
go lookup on youtube
Smaller Chamber Comparison vid 1 62 3 - Vacuum
Or in true scientific methodology .. go do it your self
when you're explaining a physics topic: it turns out that... xD
= "What follows is the result of a mathematical argument which, out of mercy, I will spare you:"
@Matthew Grimshaw You give a talk in a room of walk-in bods deciding whether to buy a smaller car or maybe EV and say "As you clearly see in this global pictorial, the decadally-averaged 1st derivative of the power flux density anomaly per steradian per unit wave number indicates dangerous future climate change. Any questions at all ?"
That beeping in the background
Sounds like a faint phone ringing, made me pause and look around a couple times :/
You retards.
I don't know why they bothered giving the rays a sound. More annoying than useful. I first thought it was a phone ringing in another room as well.
He's a brain surgeon in his spare time. On call. Some persons are just brilliant polymaths.
Not a single thing that I didn't already know, but OMG, I've never seen it presented so clearly and simply. This was Feynman level teaching.
@D V ohh, i see what you mean. He should have mentioned how that factors into the equation.
@Bryan Maxwell right because we are only on sun half the time and isn't taking in to account the massive about of heat water absorbs.
U r a moron
@D V "the earth isn't flat. this is a terrible illustration". You've raised an excellent point there and I've heard extremely extremely extremely theoretical physics lectures postulating that beyond the standard 2 dimensions we're all familiar with from the GoogleTube & TwitFace lies a mysterious, frightening, never-observed 3rd Dimension !!!!!!!
@grindupBaker lol
Brillant video. Thanks for this and all the other content. BTW, the interviewer does not get enough credit - he does a fantastic job of guiding the conversation and asking questions us layman would ask to solicit answers we can digest.
took me a while to figure out where those sounds were coming from, I thought I was going mad
I kept answering the phone. I reported it to the police.
now explain the milhouse effect
until min 12 I was annoyed by the telephone ring outside of my room. Than I realized that it was the light of the sun in the video.
These animations prove the Earth is flat ! ^^
I just love way this great mind explaining stuff
We overcooked it a little😂😂
Merrifield looks so old these days with his beard :D
Thanks sixty symbols and thanks to Professor Michael Merrifield. Well, balance explanation.
Pretty please do a video on the Grand Tack scenario :D
I have an exam tomorrow and this is part of the material
Thanks guys hahah
This will remain one of my favorites. I also have an idea perhaps for the Objectivity series. It is all quite nice, but a bit UK-centric. Why not visit national archives in other countries as well? I am sure there are great things to show there as well.
Great episode, thank you.
very inclusive review for laypersons.
Thank you so much for the best explanation I have EVER seen on how the greenhouse effect works and were the uncertainty come from. 1 billion thumbs up!
Fair explanation. Pretty much enough for me to lean more on the side that global warming is a hoax.
What, did you not watch the video. Add CO2-> planet warms.
Good job Brady!
Insightful!
5:53 Yet.
Video literally said "no views" i guess this is the first time i am this early
Your awesome firstness has been recognized. Youre literally the first human to stumble on this the first great explanation of this debated phenomenon. Enjoy your day!
Excellent video. Thanks. Maybe a future one could be about oceans and tectonic plates.
Excellent video, concise and beautifully explained.
Thank you
👽People try to tell me how to do my job too and they run away from my job just like they run away from yours.👽
Could you guys do a video on convection vs radiation?
The old homeless dude sounds pretty smart!
So how much has the Earth's "photosphere" expanded? Do we have a measurement for this? Great video!
Taking an Adiabatic Lapse Rate = 7 deg C/km = 7 K/km, for every increase of 7 K at the Earth's surface the radius of the Photosphere would increase by 1 km.
great explanation
Is there video showing oceans influence?
This is a great video. It shows the basic analysis for the greenhouse effect quantitatively, rather than just hand-waving, and as Prof Merrifield said, shows how no physical laws are broken. I haven't seen any other videos explaining this basic calculation (although I haven't been looking too hard)....
Sugar makes me have severe depression.
Nice explanation! But perhaps a little overuse of the sound effects.
Great and very informative video. Like always! However, please consider the usage of 'audio effects' (if that annoying sound is even worth being called an audio effect) in your next video. :-)
Great stuff.
We were just talking about this in my intro geography class. Fun to see the crossover.
16:34 Does this mean that actual greenhouses are not warmed by "the greenhouse effect"?
Yes. An actual greenhouse and "the greenhouse effect" are different things that have a similar result.
Green house's warm because the roof prevents convective cooling.
@cloudpoint It's not similar because the atm. is open like a car with open doors, so less effect.
@peterweetbeter
Maybe not exactly like a car with open doors. Open doors increases convection so less warming effect, as you say. But Earth’s atmosphere isn’t convectively open. It is just radiatively open in certain wavelengths. The greenhouse effect is the temperature balance achieved when radiation in and out become equal, and global warming represents an ongoing imbalance (less out than needed).
Very informative but poorly structured...
15:46 Didcot Coal/Gas Power Station?
pfff that's CGI
Point 8 Crediting surface temperature directly with atmospheric temperature is backward. Just like the whole claiming that positive reinforcement is a leading factor and not just a supportive element.
Surely if the Co2 in the atmosphere was able to lock heat in.... It would be able to block it out???
Or does it only work in effect when heat/energy is leaving the planet?
Daniele Messina - 2018-08-20
I have great admiration for Prof Merrifield. The way he explains physics is just wonderful, it's like a perfectly balanced construction, or a great gymnast's routine. Everything falls into place.
CD Marshall - 2019-12-25
@DANG JOS That infrared is not causing any warming in the process, it can't. A 15 micron photon is absolutely insignificant in temperature and the universal thermodynamic rule needs to be met to create heat: Energy transfer from warmer to colder, Delta T (ΔT).
The surface is far warmer than the atmosphere therefore an energy exchange may take place but not an increase in temperature. Any temperature delay in the atmosphere from ghgs (aside from water vapor) is very short lived and is not transferable from the surface to the atmosphere back to the surface. IR radiation in the troposphere is nearly useless as a means of temperature change.
Conduction/convection/advection being the primary drivers, not the 1-2% contribution of IR.
Latent heat is a product of water vapor.
Benjamin Feddersen - 2020-01-27
True intellectuals never have to prepare to lecture on an important subject, because they've already done it so many times they know it backwards and forwards.
grindupBaker - 2020-02-12
@Scott Robinson Also, the effects of space lizards totally ignored here.
grindupBaker - 2020-02-12
@Zoe Phin Also, the effects of space lizards totally ignored here.
grindupBaker - 2020-02-14
@Zoe Phin Oh no ! The old frozen teddy bear refutation of the "greenhouse effect". When Albert Einstein was first shown that he replied "Well maybe but I'm cuter than a teddy bear anyway".