Yes and if Biden could get through one speech without fucking it up it would prove he doesn't have permanent brain damage. We can only hope it happens.
With increase in all those nasties, everything is greening, worldwide, why because all those nasties were lock away. underground, buried by forestation. It was natural vegetation and still is natural vegetation, that is escaping. It's about time.
I was agreeing with the video up until the point where you mentioned that a methane bomb is unlikely to go off due to a big portion of methane being stored underwater. That is only partly true. You completely neglected to mention the fact that there's an enormous amount of methane being stored in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf which is only 58 meters deep. This Arctic shelf is shallow enough to allow the Arctic methane to escape in form of bubble plumes into the atmosphere with ease. That alone raises the possibility of the methane bomb going off from 'very unlikely' to 'highly likely'.
There are multiple sources that have deemed the risk of massive methane release from methane hydrates to be lower risk than many have made them out to be. In any case, 58 meters of water still has a very strong insulating factor which should hopefully defend against rising atmospheric temperatures. This area of research is still very uncertain though and requires more understanding to better quantify the specific risks to each region.
@UC-NmIvin1ZbX4TfZLS9ZHMg I take it you chose denial because the truth is too sobering? Perhaps you haven’t heard that the Earth is warming 10 times faster than it has in 65 million years. As indicated in a Stanford Report titled “Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say”. Or that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a pace 100 times faster than it naturally should? As indicated in an NOAA article titled “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”. Maybe you also haven’t heard that the Earth’s oceans are acidifying 100 times faster than they have in at least 20 million years because humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? As indicated by UNESCO. Quote: “The ocean absorbs approximately 26% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from human activities each year.” Also, how is CO2 relevant to this discussion? We’re discussing Methane. Have you even watched the video before jumping to the comment section? If you don’t know what Methane is, then I suggest you should google “The Greenhouse Effect: Dangers of Methane”. Educate yourself first before trying to dispute science.
@@PlanetZeroVideos Yeah, there is a lot of uncertainces in this area, some sources (like Guardian) saying that methane hydrates melt started, some not(Because it's very hard to warm deep waters), but if the melt started - the majority of methane will not just simply enter the atmosphere, some bubbles will just dissolve in water, some will be eaten by the microbes and converted into CO2, only fraction of methane will enter the atmosphere, and after some years will convert into CO2.
I much as I enjoyed what you put here, it barely scratches the surface of what is actually happening today. Parts in northern Canada you have marked in red that will be thawed by 2050 were seeing that thaw in the mid 1990's. Northern Baffin Island is one such place. I spent over 5 years in that area before returning south in 1979. Friends from those areas have sent photos and then videos showing the damage and destruction by human abuse of the land. There is a whole lot more, but I'll leave there. Because people don't believe or are unconcerned about anything except their own greed for money.
That's a good thing now maybe they'll have a longer growing season and be able to have more food rather than be freezing to death 9 months out of the year
May? MAY?! WTF?! The Precautionary Principle says anything that has a High Existential Risk *AND* Significant Uncertainty should make 5 Alarm Bells Ring!! Hello!!
2:44 thats not what scientists are saying now they are already mapping methane bubbles along the Laptev Siberian coast over 2000 spots and thats just what they found with their limited resources and time
The very fact that there are many critters entombed in the permafrost shows that at one time the land was not frozen, at least during the summer. Structures sinking into the permafrost is a well-known problem, which is why many modern structures are built on columns that protect the soil underneath from melting. Of course there is not a lot of melting when winter comes with temperatures below freezing. The daytime temperature today (2/2/2022) at Fairbanks is minus 25 F.
This is exactly what happened 250 million years ago. Due to carbon released by volcanos in Siberia the permafrost melted pushing global temperatures up by 6 degrees. Roughly 95% of all plant and animal life became extinct.
Last summer there was record heat and even over 10C temperatures on the top of these methane bomb areas. If this heat will find its way to the shallow (50-150m deep) ocean floor it will melt in record time likely causing wast methane releases. This will be more likely in the future when the arctic ocean is ice free (estimates from 2022 to 2070's). Multiple methane plumes that are reaching over 1 squarekilometer area have been already seen in the ESAS area (East Siberian Arctic Self).
Warming 100m of seawater is no easy task, ice free or not. Also, as far as I am aware, these methane plumes have been going on some time now with not much effect on global methane emissions. So much more research needs to be done.
Yes, some regions of permafrost are melting currently, causing damages to property, infrastructure, and ecosystems. The world is talking about climate change and making vague promises about emissions reductions while continuing to practice unsustainable ways of living. The status quo is not easily changed, even in the face of a global crisis.
reducing pollution reduces our planet's albedo (unfortunatlely). which is the reason why the only known solution to permafrost melting is solar geoengineering.
Emissions reductions would work too but you're correct. My main research interest for my upcoming PhD is solar geoengineering using aerosols for this reason. It's a risky idea but it may be necessary
Hopefully the climate does change in Alaska and maybe they'll have longer summers where they can grow more food and they won't freeze to death in the winter. No one ever looks at the positive effects of planetary cyclical climate change which is that in areas where they only had one growing season some places have two growing seasons for example in certain parts of Russia where they couldn't sustain themselves because it was too cold now they are growing food to sustain themselves throughout the year which is positive. And if it gets hotter South of the Border more people will move north and that will increase your diversity so you should be happy about that
Get to the point where permafrost is starting to thaw and methane gas is released. this is when you are going to see acceleration unimaginably. The end. 👁
We had the greatest biodiversity when the earth was ice-free ... right now we live in an ice age but we can hope that we get out of it so that life on earth can flourish.
nature naturally adjusts when it happens in slow pace, and when it happens too quickly life forms don't have the time to adjust causing mass extinctions, not to mention the inability of agriculture to adjust to the too fast adjustment ... good try to add to the denier mindset even if you're right that after eons all kinds of new life forms might thrive, just not us
Might I suggest Hügelkultur and utilizing (for example) the bark beetle killed and infested trees as a base for large scale Hügelkultur to carbon capture the dead and dying trees from fires while building soils and storing water and holding snow loads longer.
I saw this a year after this video was posted. And after the oceans all warmed greatly. So I assume the 1% methane release is a lot closer than we thought.
Funny enough, the oceans warming so much this summer might actually be because of a cleaner burning cargo ship fuel. Check out my YT Shorts video for a brief explanation
The video covers reasons why permafrost may be a more important aspect of Earth's biosphere than you would expect. If it all melts, there will be unprecedented methane emissions, loss of plant and animal life that lives in the region, and billions in damage to infrastructure.
True but we can't rule out the possibility of things like geoengineering, carbon capture, or, dare I say, serious climate action. The future isn't set in stone
Hi, I think I read somewhere that methane lasts about 12 years in the atmosphere. So long as the methane is released at a much slower rate will that be fine? I was wondering if it just gets destroyed as it is released? Your image at 0:38 seems to suggest the methane release takes about 100 years start to end.
Hi Andrew, Firstly, yes, methane does last about 12 years on average in the atmosphere. It can stick around longer depending on the chemistry of the region, but this is an average lifespan. Also, after this time, the methane doesn’t just disappear, but is reacted with oxygen to form CO2 at a 1:1 ratio. So yeah, the warming impact decreases significantly but methane emissions = carbon dioxide emissions after a decade or so. Secondly, the figure at 0:38 doesn’t have anything to do with methane, but is a map of where permafrost is expected to thaw by a given year at our current warming trends. Granted this is based on models which make good predictions, but are not by any means perfect. The models are only as good as our observational data. Hope this clarifies things a little more :)
It’s hard to say really. There isn’t much land that would be exposed if Arctic ice (sea ice) melts. For permafrost melting, there would not be many plants growing at first due to the instability of the land. When permafrost thaws, it tends to collapse since it was being held together by solid water for so long. I assume eventually trees and forests could grow where they couldn’t, but think of how much vegetation will be lost under warmer conditions elsewhere. Large chunks of the Amazon rainforest and Sub Saharan Africa will support much less vegetation compared to what they do now. So all in all, localized vegetation increase would probably be pretty insignificant in terms of global CO2 levels. Good question though.
"...there lays a land, that never thaws." Except at some time in the past, it was. So "never" is a relative term. Be careful using absolute terms like "never". A scientist doesn't.
If I was presenting this data in a scientific journal or conference I would agree with you. UA-cam is a whole different beast and I need to find a balance between educating and entertaining. “There lays a land that only thaws every several million years due to slow moving geological climate processes and biotic factors” doesn’t have the same ring to it 🙃
@@PlanetZeroVideos Sadly, there are actual scientists who also believe they must shock and awe instead of present information correctly. A few years ago scientists unthawed a puppy from permafrost. The permafrost wasn't there when the puppy was drowned in the swamp the permafrost used to be. And it didn't drown a million years ago. So your "every several million years" is a bit off.
One more thought. There is no Planet B. This means that whatever the "Global Average Temperature" is right now, there is no way to know whether it's "good" or "bad" because there is no standard or measuring stick. Because: There is no Planet B.
The exact same as happened the last thousand time the methane is released and the ultraviolet light immediately converts it to Co2 and the increased growing Area grows plants that consume all of the Co2!
You're right in the sense that UV light does degrade methane into CO2 and that the newly thawed land would provide plants more room to grow. However, I believe you're overestimating how much CO2 plants can absorb over a given timeframe. If it were that simple of a fix, no one would be concerned about the impact of permafrost melting.
@@PlanetZeroVideos I know working in the green house in high school that if the Co2 generator ran out of propane the Co2 level would drop to 200PPM in less then an hour and plants would die!
@@PlanetZeroVideos well we are now in one of the worst carbon droughts in modern history! For the last 200,000,000 the atmospheric Co2 has averaged over 6,000PPM and we have had global ICE -ages when it was that high! So it is obvious that Co2 has no control of global temperature!
Permafrost has of course melted in the past. I’m sure large swaths of the continental US had permafrost during the last Ice Age that now no longer have it. The issue is not that it is melting, the issue is that we are causing it to melt faster and faster due to our carbon emissions. Like the video explains, this activates a lot of positive feedback loops that will continue this artificially accelerated melting for years, even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 today (which we can’t/won’t). The real danger of these tipping points is less about the permafrost biome and more about how we have ACCIDENTALLY activated global climate cycles that will alter the temperature of our planet for centuries, if not millennia.
@PlanetZeroVideos every time it has melted, it has given off the methane produced by the plants that grew when lt was subtropical and that cycle will continue long after man is gone
Thank you! The concept of methane hydrates is definitely pretty scary but luckily it doesn't look like they'll be much of an issue at any point in the near future
Question: There is a presumption we can stop this feedback loop and still spew 460 billion tons more carbon dioxide. How exactly are we going to stop it? Are we going to verbally manipulate CO2 & methane into halting the feedback? People are good at conning each other but conning a feedback loop might prove much harder.
This is why I personally believe some level of geoengineering will be necessary to stop these positive feedback loops. The more research that goes into things like solar radiation management, iron fertilization, marine cloud brightening, etc., the better chance we stand to keep Earth's climate stable while transitioning our economies. A lot more research is needed though, there are still massive uncertainties that must be addressed.
"There is a presumption we can stop this feedback loop" there is no presumption we can stop these feed back loops where are you getting this information? once triggered you wont be able to "refreeze" sub sea permafrost
@@PlanetZeroVideos sounds like you're counting on a whole lot of political will and agreement , which humans have a very poor record indeed! But hope runs eternal till its game over I guess.
If things do go badly with the permafrost, it would serve those oil and gas barons right if their gear was rendered useless. If you go to Alaska you can see where the Alaska pipeline is above ground and situated in a series of “tubes” which allow the pipes room to move in case of earthquakes. But will it work for shifting permafrost also?
Interestingly enough, a lot of prospective gas drilling companies are looking into possibly tapping into the methane in permafrost and methane hydrates to sell as natural gas... I would imagine these earthquake tubes would help somewhat, but they are designed to withstand brief shifts in the crust, not decadal melting. I still need to look more into this.
Very VERY informative, please keep going! Ah and a topic I would love to see: climate conscious architecture, buildings, or solutions that aimed to be sustainable
Thanks for the kind words! I was thinking about doing a video soon on sustainable fashion and the difference between brands that are actually sustainable and brands that are just "greenwashing". Also considering a video on LEED certifications for buildings.
For over a hundred million years glaciers covered the entire North American continent. The land was permafrost. When the glaciers receded 12,000 years ago this whole continent of permafrost melted. Did the world explode? Humans are 200,000 years old and survived very nicely.
Rate of change!!! Species can't adapt to the rapid changes. we're in the midst of the 6th mass extinction. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere 10 times faster than the petm extinction event. You should do some actual research
North America was not continuously covered by glaciers for even a few million years. It really only started in the Cenozoic. Also, the formation of the Laurentide Ice sheet is closely related to the Pleistocene. In this period, changes in earth's orbit around the sun caused warmer and colder phase lasting some 100,000 years during which large continental ice sheets formed in North America and Europe. These subsequently melted after a few 10,000 years when it got warmer again. The last ice shield that melted in North America as a cause of these climate fluctuations was the ice shield built up during Marine Isotope Stages 4 to 2 (starting only ~90,000 years ago). Also: If you compare the extent of permafrost in North America and Russia you will see that there is less permafrost in North America. This is an effect of the ice sheet covering the ground and keeping it warm relative to the colder air temperatures (think of igloos). You also may have realized that there was an immense change in climate everywhere after the Last Glacial Maximum and humans where strongly influenced by that everywhere on the globe. In fact, the land bridges between Eurasia and North America sunk into the ocean when the sea level rose 120 m. As a side note: We today are certainly not the same as the societies that lived 10,000 years ago.
@@Jc-ms5vv My post was deleted. Trying again. The rate of change has no affect on humans. Humans today live everywhere from Antarctica to the Australian outback. Dubai is a prospering city in one of the hottest areas on earth. The Israelis have been turning deserts into farmland since the 1960's. Data proves we have never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history. Co2 levels in greenhouses are as high as 1500ppm. In submarines and the International Space station Co2 is as high as 5,000ppm. 25% of the Netherlands already sits below sea level and the Dutch aren't dying. There are thousands of plant an animal species across Russia, Europe and North America that endure temps that go from +35C down to -25C in only 6 months. Nothing dies. Whales migrate from the frigid waters of Alaska to the Sea of Cortez each year. Crocodiles that swim in vast rivers in the rainy season, wallow in mud during the dry season. Canada geese have stopped flying south in my lifetime because food is abundant. Plants and animals simply aren't that fragile. We are about to start bulldozing farms, forests, jungles, meadows and deserts to lay hectares of solar panels. This represents a far greater threat to habitat than warming ever could. Over population is the only threat to wildlife. Is that enough research for you? Maybe it is you who needs to do some research and stop getting your science lessons from media.
join and give emotion and feeling to God's free will kingdom central authority; push out political governments in every nation, NATO and other region alliances, and UN
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
What other questions about permafrost or methane hydrates do you have? Let us know! 🧊
If it melts that will prove it wasn't PERMA-frost won't it.
Yes and if Biden could get through one speech without fucking it up it would prove he doesn't have permanent brain damage. We can only hope it happens.
With increase in all those nasties, everything is greening, worldwide, why because all those nasties were lock away. underground, buried by forestation. It was natural vegetation and still is natural vegetation, that is escaping. It's about time.
I was agreeing with the video up until the point where you mentioned that a methane bomb is unlikely to go off due to a big portion of methane being stored underwater. That is only partly true. You completely neglected to mention the fact that there's an enormous amount of methane being stored in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf which is only 58 meters deep. This Arctic shelf is shallow enough to allow the Arctic methane to escape in form of bubble plumes into the atmosphere with ease. That alone raises the possibility of the methane bomb going off from 'very unlikely' to 'highly likely'.
There are multiple sources that have deemed the risk of massive methane release from methane hydrates to be lower risk than many have made them out to be. In any case, 58 meters of water still has a very strong insulating factor which should hopefully defend against rising atmospheric temperatures. This area of research is still very uncertain though and requires more understanding to better quantify the specific risks to each region.
Stop fear mongering for traitors.
@@ricktd6891 since when raising the awareness is considered fear mongering?
@UC-NmIvin1ZbX4TfZLS9ZHMg I take it you chose denial because the truth is too sobering?
Perhaps you haven’t heard that the Earth is warming 10 times faster than it has in 65 million years. As indicated in a Stanford Report titled “Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say”. Or that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a pace 100 times faster than it naturally should? As indicated in an NOAA article titled “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”. Maybe you also haven’t heard that the Earth’s oceans are acidifying 100 times faster than they have in at least 20 million years because humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? As indicated by UNESCO. Quote: “The ocean absorbs approximately 26% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from human activities each year.”
Also, how is CO2 relevant to this discussion? We’re discussing Methane. Have you even watched the video before jumping to the comment section? If you don’t know what Methane is, then I suggest you should google “The Greenhouse Effect: Dangers of Methane”. Educate yourself first before trying to dispute science.
@@PlanetZeroVideos Yeah, there is a lot of uncertainces in this area, some sources (like Guardian) saying that methane hydrates melt started, some not(Because it's very hard to warm deep waters), but if the melt started - the majority of methane will not just simply enter the atmosphere, some bubbles will just dissolve in water, some will be eaten by the microbes and converted into CO2, only fraction of methane will enter the atmosphere, and after some years will convert into CO2.
I much as I enjoyed what you put here, it barely scratches the surface of what is actually happening today. Parts in northern Canada you have marked in red that will be thawed by 2050 were seeing that thaw in the mid 1990's. Northern Baffin Island is one such place. I spent over 5 years in that area before returning south in 1979. Friends from those areas have sent photos and then videos showing the damage and destruction by human abuse of the land. There is a whole lot more, but I'll leave there. Because people don't believe or are unconcerned about anything except their own greed for money.
Yes its using old data ..things are moving much much faster than the older predictions thought even possible !
It's a global scam.
@@MyKharli Stop lying.
That's a good thing now maybe they'll have a longer growing season and be able to have more food rather than be freezing to death 9 months out of the year
May? MAY?! WTF?! The Precautionary Principle says anything that has a High Existential Risk *AND* Significant Uncertainty should make 5 Alarm Bells Ring!! Hello!!
2:44 thats not what scientists are saying now they are already mapping methane bubbles along the Laptev Siberian coast over 2000 spots and thats just what they found with their limited resources and time
Dr. Guy McPherson says we're all toast in a few years. Due to methane release, which he argues, will take place.
he's good but he might be off in the time frame, Hopefully!
The very fact that there are many critters entombed in the permafrost shows that at one time the land was not frozen, at least during the summer. Structures sinking into the permafrost is a well-known problem, which is why many modern structures are built on columns that protect the soil underneath from melting. Of course there is not a lot of melting when winter comes with temperatures below freezing. The daytime temperature today (2/2/2022) at Fairbanks is minus 25 F.
It's all lies to push Agenda 21 on us.
This is exactly what happened 250 million years ago. Due to carbon released by volcanos in Siberia the permafrost melted pushing global temperatures up by 6 degrees.
Roughly 95% of all plant and animal life became extinct.
A technicality: permafrost is like meat in the freezer, it does not melt, it thaws
To be fair, there is moisture in the soil that does freeze but you are correct. Methane hydrates are a different story :)
Glad I came across your channel.
Last summer there was record heat and even over 10C temperatures on the top of these methane bomb areas. If this heat will find its way to the shallow (50-150m deep) ocean floor it will melt in record time likely causing wast methane releases. This will be more likely in the future when the arctic ocean is ice free (estimates from 2022 to 2070's). Multiple methane plumes that are reaching over 1 squarekilometer area have been already seen in the ESAS area (East Siberian Arctic Self).
Warming 100m of seawater is no easy task, ice free or not. Also, as far as I am aware, these methane plumes have been going on some time now with not much effect on global methane emissions. So much more research needs to be done.
very not epic indeed. but very epic video
Here's to making scenario SSP5-8.5 a reality. All hail the anthropocene epoch 🙌
Isnt permafrost currently melting? What is the world doing about this?
Yes, some regions of permafrost are melting currently, causing damages to property, infrastructure, and ecosystems. The world is talking about climate change and making vague promises about emissions reductions while continuing to practice unsustainable ways of living. The status quo is not easily changed, even in the face of a global crisis.
Oil And gas should foot the bill! 😘
Thanks
There are already plenty of videos from Alaska, Canada and Siberia showing that methane hydrates have started to melt.
You didn't mention zombie bacteria & viruses locked away in the permafrost... unless it thaws!
reducing pollution reduces our planet's albedo (unfortunatlely). which is the reason why the only known solution to permafrost melting is solar geoengineering.
Emissions reductions would work too but you're correct. My main research interest for my upcoming PhD is solar geoengineering using aerosols for this reason. It's a risky idea but it may be necessary
You mean the totally unknown effects of something never tried before , if that's all that's left then were truly doomed .
Hopefully the climate does change in Alaska and maybe they'll have longer summers where they can grow more food and they won't freeze to death in the winter. No one ever looks at the positive effects of planetary cyclical climate change which is that in areas where they only had one growing season some places have two growing seasons for example in certain parts of Russia where they couldn't sustain themselves because it was too cold now they are growing food to sustain themselves throughout the year which is positive. And if it gets hotter South of the Border more people will move north and that will increase your diversity so you should be happy about that
Get to the point where permafrost is starting to thaw and methane gas is released. this is when you are going to see acceleration unimaginably. The end. 👁
Speculative assumptionists you CAN presume , annoy the piss out of me!!!!
Permafrost melting is normal and has happened long before humans appeared and will happen long after we are gone.
We had the greatest biodiversity when the earth was ice-free ... right now we live in an ice age but we can hope that we get out of it so that life on earth can flourish.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read.
nature naturally adjusts when it happens in slow pace, and when it happens too quickly life forms don't have the time to adjust causing mass extinctions, not to mention the inability of agriculture to adjust to the too fast adjustment ... good try to add to the denier mindset even if you're right that after eons all kinds of new life forms might thrive, just not us
@@markh3055 🤣
Dude ! The water itself is warming. This is already happening.
Il y a surtout le bon sens qui est en danger !
L'intégrité psychique des geocondriaques !
Might I suggest Hügelkultur and utilizing (for example) the bark beetle killed and infested trees as a base for large scale Hügelkultur to carbon capture the dead and dying trees from fires while building soils and storing water and holding snow loads longer.
It's a scam.
Simple light it just a bit of heat, in the atmasphere it can do more damage.
But 2 deg is now an impossible attainment ..ooops .
I saw this a year after this video was posted. And after the oceans all warmed greatly. So I assume the 1% methane release is a lot closer than we thought.
Funny enough, the oceans warming so much this summer might actually be because of a cleaner burning cargo ship fuel. Check out my YT Shorts video for a brief explanation
Who needs permafrost. We have settled science that cold is bad and hot is good for mankind and growing food.
The video covers reasons why permafrost may be a more important aspect of Earth's biosphere than you would expect. If it all melts, there will be unprecedented methane emissions, loss of plant and animal life that lives in the region, and billions in damage to infrastructure.
Run! The sky is falling! Henny Penny
Kind of a reductive point of view
Duh not if it melts. It is melting!
It’s too late. WASF 🔥🌎🔥
99% sure that 'if' should be a 'when'
True but we can't rule out the possibility of things like geoengineering, carbon capture, or, dare I say, serious climate action. The future isn't set in stone
Hi,
I think I read somewhere that methane lasts about 12 years in the atmosphere. So long as the methane is released at a much slower rate will that be fine? I was wondering if it just gets destroyed as it is released? Your image at 0:38 seems to suggest the methane release takes about 100 years start to end.
Hi Andrew,
Firstly, yes, methane does last about 12 years on average in the atmosphere. It can stick around longer depending on the chemistry of the region, but this is an average lifespan. Also, after this time, the methane doesn’t just disappear, but is reacted with oxygen to form CO2 at a 1:1 ratio. So yeah, the warming impact decreases significantly but methane emissions = carbon dioxide emissions after a decade or so.
Secondly, the figure at 0:38 doesn’t have anything to do with methane, but is a map of where permafrost is expected to thaw by a given year at our current warming trends. Granted this is based on models which make good predictions, but are not by any means perfect. The models are only as good as our observational data.
Hope this clarifies things a little more :)
@@PlanetZeroVideos Hi, that's great thanks. Very helpful.
#moltensaltreactor
Is nature
When all of the Arctic ice melts how much will the increase in vegetation decrease the atmosphereic CO2?
It’s hard to say really. There isn’t much land that would be exposed if Arctic ice (sea ice) melts. For permafrost melting, there would not be many plants growing at first due to the instability of the land. When permafrost thaws, it tends to collapse since it was being held together by solid water for so long. I assume eventually trees and forests could grow where they couldn’t, but think of how much vegetation will be lost under warmer conditions elsewhere. Large chunks of the Amazon rainforest and Sub Saharan Africa will support much less vegetation compared to what they do now.
So all in all, localized vegetation increase would probably be pretty insignificant in terms of global CO2 levels. Good question though.
@PlanetZeroVideos then ther won't be any methane because it only comes from decaing plants!
It isn't.
"...there lays a land, that never thaws." Except at some time in the past, it was. So "never" is a relative term. Be careful using absolute terms like "never". A scientist doesn't.
If I was presenting this data in a scientific journal or conference I would agree with you. UA-cam is a whole different beast and I need to find a balance between educating and entertaining. “There lays a land that only thaws every several million years due to slow moving geological climate processes and biotic factors” doesn’t have the same ring to it 🙃
@@PlanetZeroVideos Sadly, there are actual scientists who also believe they must shock and awe instead of present information correctly. A few years ago scientists unthawed a puppy from permafrost. The permafrost wasn't there when the puppy was drowned in the swamp the permafrost used to be. And it didn't drown a million years ago. So your "every several million years" is a bit off.
One more thought. There is no Planet B. This means that whatever the "Global Average Temperature" is right now, there is no way to know whether it's "good" or "bad" because there is no standard or measuring stick. Because: There is no Planet B.
very underrated video and your content overall.
Thanks so much, I appreciate the support :)
🤣
The exact same as happened the last thousand time the methane is released and the ultraviolet light immediately converts it to Co2 and the increased growing Area grows plants that consume all of the Co2!
You're right in the sense that UV light does degrade methane into CO2 and that the newly thawed land would provide plants more room to grow. However, I believe you're overestimating how much CO2 plants can absorb over a given timeframe. If it were that simple of a fix, no one would be concerned about the impact of permafrost melting.
@@PlanetZeroVideos I know working in the green house in high school that if the Co2 generator ran out of propane the Co2 level would drop to 200PPM in less then an hour and plants would die!
@@PlanetZeroVideos well we are now in one of the worst carbon droughts in modern history! For the last 200,000,000 the atmospheric Co2 has averaged over 6,000PPM and we have had global ICE -ages when it was that high! So it is obvious that Co2 has no control of global temperature!
How many thousand times has the permafrost melted? If it hadn't melted many times, there would be no methane!
Permafrost has of course melted in the past. I’m sure large swaths of the continental US had permafrost during the last Ice Age that now no longer have it. The issue is not that it is melting, the issue is that we are causing it to melt faster and faster due to our carbon emissions. Like the video explains, this activates a lot of positive feedback loops that will continue this artificially accelerated melting for years, even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 today (which we can’t/won’t).
The real danger of these tipping points is less about the permafrost biome and more about how we have ACCIDENTALLY activated global climate cycles that will alter the temperature of our planet for centuries, if not millennia.
@PlanetZeroVideos every time it has melted, it has given off the methane produced by the plants that grew when lt was subtropical and that cycle will continue long after man is gone
@PlanetZeroVideos there are no tipping points. There are only the cycles that have been repeating for millions of years
Terrifying subject - really well presented!
Thank you! The concept of methane hydrates is definitely pretty scary but luckily it doesn't look like they'll be much of an issue at any point in the near future
Question: There is a presumption we can stop this feedback loop and still spew 460 billion tons more carbon dioxide. How exactly are we going to stop it? Are we going to verbally manipulate CO2 & methane into halting the feedback? People are good at conning each other but conning a feedback loop might prove much harder.
This is why I personally believe some level of geoengineering will be necessary to stop these positive feedback loops. The more research that goes into things like solar radiation management, iron fertilization, marine cloud brightening, etc., the better chance we stand to keep Earth's climate stable while transitioning our economies. A lot more research is needed though, there are still massive uncertainties that must be addressed.
"There is a presumption we can stop this feedback loop" there is no presumption we can stop these feed back loops where are you getting this information? once triggered you wont be able to "refreeze" sub sea permafrost
@@PlanetZeroVideos sounds like you're counting on a whole lot of political will and agreement , which humans have a very poor record indeed! But hope runs eternal till its game over I guess.
Oh yay, new video! Great job as always!
Wow, this was such an informative video! UA-cam should recommend this to everybody.
filled with manipulative lies and bullshit
If things do go badly with the permafrost, it would serve those oil and gas barons right if their gear was rendered useless. If you go to Alaska you can see where the Alaska pipeline is above ground and situated in a series of “tubes” which allow the pipes room to move in case of earthquakes. But will it work for shifting permafrost also?
Interestingly enough, a lot of prospective gas drilling companies are looking into possibly tapping into the methane in permafrost and methane hydrates to sell as natural gas... I would imagine these earthquake tubes would help somewhat, but they are designed to withstand brief shifts in the crust, not decadal melting. I still need to look more into this.
Do not worry God says he is not going to let the world die by flood again but by fire
Very VERY informative, please keep going! Ah and a topic I would love to see: climate conscious architecture, buildings, or solutions that aimed to be sustainable
Thanks for the kind words! I was thinking about doing a video soon on sustainable fashion and the difference between brands that are actually sustainable and brands that are just "greenwashing". Also considering a video on LEED certifications for buildings.
@@PlanetZeroVideos sounds good :)
You might like my content too.
@@PlanetZeroVideos Do you like participating in a global scam that killed millions of poor people ?
Planet Zero videos are really well down. Maybe you might share your resources, such as graphics and software?
Great video as always! 😎👊
bwoah
For over a hundred million years glaciers covered the entire North American continent. The land was permafrost. When the glaciers receded 12,000 years ago this whole continent of permafrost melted. Did the world explode? Humans are 200,000 years old and survived very nicely.
Rate of change!!! Species can't adapt to the rapid changes. we're in the midst of the 6th mass extinction. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere 10 times faster than the petm extinction event. You should do some actual research
North America was not continuously covered by glaciers for even a few million years. It really only started in the Cenozoic. Also, the formation of the Laurentide Ice sheet is closely related to the Pleistocene. In this period, changes in earth's orbit around the sun caused warmer and colder phase lasting some 100,000 years during which large continental ice sheets formed in North America and Europe. These subsequently melted after a few 10,000 years when it got warmer again. The last ice shield that melted in North America as a cause of these climate fluctuations was the ice shield built up during Marine Isotope Stages 4 to 2 (starting only ~90,000 years ago).
Also: If you compare the extent of permafrost in North America and Russia you will see that there is less permafrost in North America. This is an effect of the ice sheet covering the ground and keeping it warm relative to the colder air temperatures (think of igloos). You also may have realized that there was an immense change in climate everywhere after the Last Glacial Maximum and humans where strongly influenced by that everywhere on the globe. In fact, the land bridges between Eurasia and North America sunk into the ocean when the sea level rose 120 m. As a side note: We today are certainly not the same as the societies that lived 10,000 years ago.
@@Jc-ms5vv My post was deleted. Trying again. The rate of change has no affect on humans. Humans today live everywhere from Antarctica to the Australian outback. Dubai is a prospering city in one of the hottest areas on earth. The Israelis have been turning deserts into farmland since the 1960's. Data proves we have never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history. Co2 levels in greenhouses are as high as 1500ppm. In submarines and the International Space station Co2 is as high as 5,000ppm. 25% of the Netherlands already sits below sea level and the Dutch aren't dying.
There are thousands of plant an animal species across Russia, Europe and North America that endure temps that go from +35C down to -25C in only 6 months. Nothing dies. Whales migrate from the frigid waters of Alaska to the Sea of Cortez each year. Crocodiles that swim in vast rivers in the rainy season, wallow in mud during the dry season. Canada geese have stopped flying south in my lifetime because food is abundant. Plants and animals simply aren't that fragile.
We are about to start bulldozing farms, forests, jungles, meadows and deserts to lay hectares of solar panels. This represents a far greater threat to habitat than warming ever could. Over population is the only threat to wildlife. Is that enough research for you? Maybe it is you who needs to do some research and stop getting your science lessons from media.
@@kopflosersalat5457 The fact remains, permafrost melted and the subsequent exposure was not planet ending. Life thrives under warming.
@@anthonymorris5084 sounds like you have it all figured out. You should confirm your research and suck on your tailpipe for a couple mins
join and give emotion and feeling to God's free will kingdom central authority; push out political governments in every nation, NATO and other region alliances, and UN
#godonlyexistsinurmind