Re: Could someone please explain ?
Well, if you really want to know how the CO² causes the warming, take a look in here - the ACTUAL "how does it work" is a lot more complex.
Yes and no. So I looked, and oh dear..
Correction to what I say at 7 mins 13: The major reason air pressure decreases is that the gravitational pressure from the air above it decreases. The gravitational force itself also decreases but that's a rather minor contribution. Sorry about that, a rather stupid brain-fart.
Indeed.. Gravity? Really? This-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law
has been the law since 1662. Although there were attempts to deny it-
Daniel Bernoulli (in 1737–1738) derived Boyle's law by applying Newton's laws of motion at the molecular level. It remained ignored until around 1845, when John Waterston published a paper building the main precepts of kinetic theory; this was rejected by the Royal Society of England. Later works of James Prescott Joule, Rudolf Clausius and in particular Ludwig Boltzmann firmly established the kinetic theory of gases and brought attention to both the theories of Bernoulli and Waterston.
Which also shows that science denial is nothing new, even from august bodies like the Royal Society. Normally science corrects itself when evidence for/against a theory becomes overwhelming. For climate 'science', the misinformation being pumped out by idiots like this dominates, even though the evidence should have lead to corrections already. Oh, and before anyone tries to jump on this bit-
an empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas.
Our atmosphere, ie the confined gas is confined by our magnetosphere, so Boyle's Law remains in force. Ok, and gravity, but one is a variable, the other is constant.
And drill core data of ice which has been examined countless times for CO² and dust concentration show that
.. rain follows the plow? Ice core data has it's own issues, but then-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
shows 420ka of climate change. It also shows CO2 following temperature. Which is Schmidt's 'control knob' problem. If effect precedes cause, how can CO2 be the control/driver? Temperatures rise, CO2 rises follow. All easily explained by science, including other bits of NASA, ie the 'greening of the Earth' as a result of warming leading to higher natural CO2 and methane/CH4 emissions.. And of course CH4 disassociates in atmosphere into CO2. And if you look at the science/data, natural emissions massively dominate anthropomorphic ones, both with huge uncertainties..
The only thing that changed in the last ~150 years are humans, with their constant CO² on top which changes it all much faster. And Hunga Tonga had no measurable effect on that. But COVID had a measurable effect on CO² though, due to the shutdowns during that time.
Wrong. But this is how climate denial works. So the gish-gallop usually follows the same plough, demonstrating the power of misinformation and propaganda, with a pile of reductio ad absurdum thrown in for good measure. So..
Start with the previously mentioned Stefan Boltzmann, and the source of much climate misinformation-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Effective_temperature_of_the_Earth
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth T⊕ by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy radiated by the Earth, under the black-body approximation (Earth's own production of energy being small enough to be negligible).
Problem is the Earth obviously isn't a black-body. It's an oblate spheroid with a blue-green finish, with a bi-annual variation (winter/summer) on a variable orbit around an inconstant Sun. But that gives us an extremely crude approximation of what the Earth's temperature might be, if you completely ignore reality. Then add an atmosphere, which is a mixed gas containing trace amounts of CO2. And then claim CO2 alone drives temperatures. Which is, of course utter bollocks.
And if you reduce it to it's absolute absurdity, it also highlights the homeopathic nature of climate 'science'. We know that temperatures have been higher in the past. We're told present CO2 levels are higher than ever before. So.. how is it that much lower amounts of CO2 can have much greater effects on temperature? This is also the problem with assumption wrt the logarithmic nature of TΔCO2 and doubliing CO2. Much smaller amounts of CO2 create equal or greater amounts of warming. This defies all known physics, but is a perfect fit for homeopathic beliefs.
But wait, there's more! So you think there's a 'measurable effect on CO2' during the great panicdemic. So where is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
I.. don't see it. But then anthropomorphic emissions are tiny compared to natural, so it gets lost in the noise. Plus that data only goes back to 1960. So then we get more denial to support the CO2 meme. So that's garbage like MBH98 and the infamous Hockey Stick. That was intended to help 'present the tidy story' that the Industrial Revolution and anthropomorphic CO2 exclusively drove temperatures. Basics of that are pretty simple. Take tree cores, measure the density of the wood for each growth ring and assume that the only factor affecting tree growth is temperature.
Any arborist, botanist or biologist will tell you that this is also bollocks. There could be many factors affecting tree growth. But if you ignore that, ignore samples from damaged trees and pre-screen to only use samples that produce the result you want, you produce a Hockey Stick. Then win tenure, millions of dollars, fame, and a Nobel Prize.. ish. Of course you also have to 'hide the decline'. And pesky reality strikes again. So dendrophrenology uses a calibration interval. So that uses actual temperature data to assume the relationship between temperature and wood density. For a lot of samples, eg Yamal, that wasn't available so was just made up. For others, the historical temperature records have been 'adjusted', so the calibration is wrong, and thus the entire model.
Luckily, reality is still real, except of course in climate 'science'. So another reason for pushing the Hockey Stick(s) was to erase the well-documented MWP and LIA. Those, along with other well documented, protracted warmer or colder intervals clearly demonstrate that climate change is real, only CO2 cannot have provided causation. But if you're looking to make billions from CO2, you have to get rid of those and deny them. Which is still ongoing. Otherwise, warming following the LIA is normal, expected and nothing to do with CO2. CO2 levels rising are, like the Vostok core demonstrated, a natural consquence of warming.
But that's also where the real climate science is fun. We don't really know what causes events like the LIA or MWP. We also know of large events, ie Ice Ages, but can't really explain those either. CO2 certainly can't. There are theories like Milankovitch Cycles, but those have the same problem with effect exceeding cause. On the long term, we were in an Ice Age, we aren't any more so many of the effects currently attributed to anthropomorphism and used to flog carbon credits are just the consequences of leaving the last Ice Age or being in an interglacial. But that's also climate 'science' all over. Use an abitary baseline of 1860 to artificially create a correlation with the Industrial Revolution. Ignore all the evidence that that was the end of the LIA. Start with a cold year, and you can show an exagerated warming trend. Start with say, 1922 and you can show a cooling trend instead.
And Hunga Tonga had no measurable effect on that.
You can't know that. It's been theorised that it will have had a transient warming effect. That can be observed, measured and quantified. That's how science is supposed to work. It's rare that we get geo-scale events like that, and obviously climate scientists can't tweak planetary events like that on demand outside their models. But those observations may allow models to be tweaked to better reflect the relationship between atmospheric H2O and temperature. There's also shorter duration events like the current CME. That's a crapton of energy that hit our atmosphere generating plasmas, heating, air showers and more, as well as stripping some of it away. Again one of those pesky multi-variate events that help deny CO2 dogma, especially as our magnetic field has also been declining, which in itself will be contributing to climate change.