Understanding Greenhouse Gases and Greenhouse Effect

What is Global warming, what are the causes of Global warming. It occurs due to greenhouse effect. Gases like Carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, methane, water vapor traps the earth’s heat and warms the earth.

With picture of greenhouse effect, it will help you in learning the concept. A detail illustration of carbon dioxide and greenhouse effect is shown from this video.

A 58-minute, illustrated talk describing how and why ozone depletion explains global warming much more directly and much more clearly than greenhouse gases. Greenhouse-gas theory is based on some inaccurate assumptions. See https://whyclimatechanges.com for shorter videos and considerable scientific detail.

22 thoughts on “Understanding Greenhouse Gases and Greenhouse Effect”

  1. i saw all your ncert geography videos.. i urge to you to make other ncert subjects like history and polity.. playlist,please sir …..thank you for geography…….

    Reply
  2. +Peter Ward – Chemtrails began at 92 to reflect Sun heat back to space. What is your oppinion about that procedure ? Just to mention, for me it is a very dangerous attempt. Anyway it 'stabilized' the increasing income of heat but on a higher level and so average temperature did not fall, instead, kept increasing at a lower rate.
    I agre to ozone depletion as the most origin of heating – but that many others contribute too.
    I could feel Sun shine getting weird since 1976 when I was 33 years old.

    Reply
  3. Drivel yet again. I had intended to listen but at 6:02. What ? A complete fucking joke. All of us, right down to kindergarten level, are way past this juvenile crap with the 1997/98 El Nino. I've never see it done with this much fucking blatancy of the drivel as at 6:02, not even by Monckton. What a miserable disappointment right out of the gate after the obligatory socio-political crap. Hey, Ward moron, how about adding 2015/2016 and running across the top of that peak you level 0 coal/oil shill. Pathetic. I didn't waste my time listening to the rest after seeing that crap. Take the worst of the crap out and re-post and I'll listen. Let me know. Well, you put it near the front anyway and thus saved my valuable tie from being wasted much, so a lukewarm thanks for that. Shit, what a piece of crap. Trend La Nina years only 1950-2017, it's +0.165 degrees/decade clear. Trend ENSO-neutral years only 1950-2017, it's +0.165 degrees/decade clear. Trend El Nino years only 1950-2017, it's +0.20 degrees/decade until 1990 but then increases to ~+0.23 degrees/decade with uncertainty because El Ninos some with varying index strengths. Try that instead of listening to this crap, you various pea-brain commenters. El Ninos are pulling away from La Nina & ENSO-neutral years because the tropical Atlantic surface has warmed.

    Reply
  4. Can anyone point to a research study ( besides the Scripps) – that proves the ocean's algae produces fifty percent or more of the atmospheric oxygen? I haven't found one controlled study that uses physical data, which measures the surface area of algae and its production of oxygen. It has been estimated between 50 and 80 percent of our oxygen is created in the oceans- yet it is still an estimate – maybe it's 12 percent to 24 percent – without actual data, it is not scientific.

    Peter's Wards theory makes more sense than other concepts of climate change. But I think we should find out first how oxygen is produced before giving a solution. Deforestation may be a bigger problem than co2, and CFC's- considering the fact that oxygen is close to 20 percent of the atmosphere and is the foundation of ozone creation. Less oxygen in the atmosphere means less ozone and more warming.

    Reply
  5. Should be shorter. So wordy as infomercials. Actually, I got no feeling the author himself understands the topic. Read the comments to enjoy some solid grounded criticism but seems nobody's interested. Simply frequency. Of what? Of course waves. Wanted to show this to my kid – no way.

    Reply
  6. Another scam regarding ozone .please mr go to your satellite thermal images and stop tampering with its data and be honest to yourself before talking a non sense also show us what kind of ozone detectors you information based on .duh.. its all about money in fake carbon footprint .

    Reply
  7. Someone sent me this video to take a look at. It prompts me to ask some very basic questions:
    1) You wrote: "Geologists study the 4+ billion years of climate change that has occurred throughout Earth history." Well, some geologists do, but according to your publishing history you don't. Your field is vulcanology as it relates to plate tectonics, not palaeoclimatology. Is that correct? I am not asking what your hobbies are, I am asking if you have studied and published in the field of palaeolclimatology specifically as a professional researcher.
    2) You wrote: "I have several published papers." Really? I could only find one "published" paper listed on your website on this subject, and that was to an online journal called Current Physical Chemistry, which is not on the Master Journals List. The last time its impact factor was rated it was 0.18, and its impact factor is now so low it isn't even rated at all. Apart from that, your only other attempts at publication consist of presentations at conferences (which, as you know, are not peer-reviewed), rejection letters from respected journals, and papers that are "submitted" or "in review." So where are these "published papers"? Please cite a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal where your ozone hypothesis has actually been published.
    3) You wrote: "Climate cycled from very hot to very cold to very hot as frequently as every 4000 years. This is hard to explain using greenhouse gases." So you haven't read the mountain of research into this field and the numerous studies that explain it? Can you cite any of these studies or are you totally unaware of them?

    Reply
  8. I don't understand why he begins with 1945 – focusing in on 1970 – 1998. Why not start with 1845 – the start of the Industrial Revolution. If the same pattern held true back to that date, it would be more believable. That is when the pollution began.

    He calls us an evolving world. We are clearly DEvolving. Also, he is uninformed. He says that we can't get rid of both capitalism and get rid of pollution. We CAN. Capitalism is very recent in humankind's history. We have lost sight of an essential part of our humanity and we have replaced it with a love of money that blinds us to solutions.

    On the other hand, the argument makes great sense otherwise. Perhaps governments around the world should stop their HAARP (Now DARPA) programs that boil the upper atmosphere. These are top secret weapons that were developed in the 1970s.

    Reply
  9. Phytoplankton produce over 50 percent of our oxygen that we breath. They absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Two forms of UV radiation can and do devastate phytoplankton populations. I have not heard one individual mention phytoplankton in their discussion of global warming. We blamed ozone depletion on man made toxins for years until Mt Pinatubo erupted. Then we realized the significant role that volcanic aerosols produce on ozone depletion. Mt Hudson played a role as well and both of those eruptions revolutionized that way we understand ozone depletion. Lets not make this same mistake with global warming. Science is not cherry picking.

    Reply
  10. Wouldn't the increase of irrigation water in the atmosphere address the increase of global temperatures? The chart shows water having a higher absorption of temperature than any of the gases.

    Reply
  11. It is deceptive to only show land temperature graphs, to "prove" the Earth is warming slowly. Over 90% of the excess heat is stored in the oceans, and the oceans are the warmest they have been for 5 million years, and heating RAPIDLY.
    This runaway heating trend is going vertical, as the Arctic Methane is now venting. After all the Arctic methane vents, the greenhouse gas content will increase by hundreds of times. This may happen in the next few decades.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/
    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-5-4.jpg
    arctic-news.blogspot.com/
    How much does the fossil fuel lobby pay you to upload disinformation, like this?

    Reply
  12. This is an interesting and provocative theory. I would be interested in seeing feedback on the science of this presentation from other scientists. I think it is unfortunate that you've included comments on the politics and economics of climate change, because it distracts from the scientific ideas you're presenting. However, I think science needs outside perspectives in order to continue to evolve, and in that way I support you.

    Reply
  13. Dr. Ward gives a well-researched and thoughtful presentation that explores the cause of global warming, building a successful case for ozone depletion. This video is well worth watching and listening to–for scientists and non-scientists–as he bucks commonly held assumptions about global warming and has the science to back it up. Amazing graphics.

    Reply
  14. I am not a climate scientist, but the logic of this presentation makes sense to me.  Dr. Ward treads a careful path.  He does not dispute that global warming has occurred, or that it may occur again.  Also, he does not dispute that atmospheric CO2 may have harmful effects on the environment.  However, his focus is that O3 (ozone) depletion, not increased CO2, has been the cause of global warming, and that O3 has been stable for more than a decade thereby causing a plateau in global warming.  It is important that climate scientists get a clear and accurate consensus on this in order that environmental solutions that we all seek can be achieved by the correct methods.  Dr. Ward's thesis needs to be taken up both seriously and urgently by the scientific community because the issues at stake are too important, and the solutions too expensive, to be left to ill-informed politicians whatever their good intentions may be.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to suraj singh Cancel reply

16 − thirteen =