Highly amused by all the comments on my video about how the greenhouse effect isn't simple that complain it isn't simple. 🙃 More seriously, simplification is well and fine if there's a way for people to go beyond that, if they want to.
I have found that to be exceedingly difficult for climate science. Most of what you read about it goes like this: "Here's what we know, science is settled, here's a picture that says nothing, now shut up."
Then there's the academic literature that assumes you know everything already, so no surprise that people constantly draw the wrong conclusions from it.
Then there's Wikipedia and a couple of more-or-less helpful websites (notably skepticalscience.com) that try really hard to get the facts across, but are near impossible to understand because they lack didactic guides.
Which is why I went and read the better part of a several hundred pages textbook and then pestered the author (and several other people for good measure).
And since I have a fairly average brain I thought if I had that problem, chances are other people have the same problem, hence the video.
For me the thing that made everything click into place was the realization that the different parts of the outgoing spectrum can approximately be understood as being determined by the altitude of emission.
In any case, I understand you may find this naive, but I believe many people who ended up being climate change deniers got there because it really isn't simple. And that no one even tries to explain it just supports their belief that something isn't kosher.
Loading suggestions...