I don’t think it matters that you understand, it’s the 10’s of millions of people that think it is Jesus planning his next holliday that need to understand this,
There is no climate emergency. Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light. It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather. the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
Good pooling of data. I once did a talk on methane to the West Yorkshire Humanists, and had a comment or complaint afterwards saying I'd left some of the attendees traumatised.
The fastest way to mitigate methane looks to me like the Global Carbon Reward. Methane is a much more dangerous gas so it’s mitigation is worth much more per ton.
There is no climate emergency. Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light. It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather. the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
@@emceegreen8864 methane can't build up in the air because it oxidises readily when exposed to UV light. it's measured in parts per billion, it has no effect on the weather. also warming is good, high CO2 is good, it's not as hot as it was during the medieval warm period.
Nonsense. A brief nuclear exchange solves over-population, global warming, and Internet saturation in hours. Time for a push of the rinse and refresh button. You know we’ll get through the rough patch. As a species if not individually.
The only possibility is to minimize, not reverse, and that is only if we completely stop all CO2 emissions and suffer the total awful collapse and horror resulting from that.
Humans, will not go extinct. 5 to 7 billion will not see 2030. Some biospheres will collapse, and many specie will go extinct-----BUT NOT ALL. Humans will leave short, uncomfortable, hard lives. We'll struggle to move and keep local biospheres, alive and going. It won't be easy. Few will live to see it. Few will want to experience it. A mass extinction is now occuring, and accelerating. Hang on to your hat ...
Yep, in my mind I was only 90% certain that we were going to hit one of the tipping points in the next year or two. Today I find out it's already too late. Methane feedback from Wetlands already started in '22. AND still no action from any of our governments, but the politicians are getting paid handsomely by fossil fuel interests. AND the COP process captured by the same vested interests. It's gonna take some very serious people power to turn this ship around AND I don't see that happening either.
We are not in runaway just yet: once the arctic methane starts a roaring boil in the oceans.... then we are within 2-3 years of existence on this planet.
@@marcplante8760 we’ve been in runaway for decades. The lag effect (GHGs staying in the atmosphere even if we miraculously stopped emitting tomorrow) means that there is no possible reversal. We won’t even be able to stop it. And slowing would be negligible, but humanity won’t even try. Business As Usual until collapse, and collapse is coming any year now,
From their website: "Over the past two decades, emissions from natural sources haven’t changed while emissions from human activities have increased significantly"
Thank you, Peter, for another presentation of the most important news in the history of our planet. Too bad so many just don't care that we are destroying our environment. We are going to need a miracle to survive, but we don't deserve one.
There is no climate emergency. Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light. It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather. the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
Thank you Peter, for your perseverance and tenacity to truth telling. Have you seen the film 'Don't Look Up'? That's where we are, certainly collectively and mostly individually. The Worst Case Scenarios will soon be upon us, as there are no global intentions to de-grow any economies or populations of consumers.
Natural population decline is a short time away, but will probably still happen too late if we don't start doing some other things in a significant way now.
As gut wrenching it is to see these graphs and the implication of the rising values, I really appreciate your work explaining these complex problems in a way that is irrefutable. Thank you.
There is no climate emergency. Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light. It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather. the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
Thank you for this update. The CH4 story is often left untold. I wonder if you could prepare an explanation on CH4s ability to trap heat relative to CO2 in another video. This story needs a good story teller, good graphics, etc., and I think you are the man for this job. One sees so many different numbers for 20-fold, 80-fold, etc., and I know why that is but most do not and it is not a nice neat, clean story, depends upon local conditions to some extent for half-life, and so on. Maybe you can crack this nut and come up with a nice neat story to explain how CH4 hangs around, or goes to CO2 and why, and if it hangs around, what potent heat trapping ability it has. I think if you can nail this, it's sure to be a classic, timeless video. Wild card, it's already been done and I cannot find it?? Thanks... tom grizzle
The great elephant in the room has always been the incredible leaks and burn offs are nothing like projected long ago to prove there was no danger. How can that not be a problem.
Australia is full of leaky pipes From CLOSED mining sites. The environmental scientists have been filing reports with the government for years. No one is held accountable because they are no longer in business. The government can’t afford to pay the maintenance costs. So the leaks continue. 🫣
Most people are ignorant by design, emergent response can only happen when they know and when I say know, I mean really know what is being hidden from them by their govts and media.
@@katiekane5247 What does cultists on both sides even mean? Hopium for what, a better earth, or at least liveable? Sorry really confused on what your intent of what your words mean.
It seems like the curve up in CH4 globally in the early 2000's was because the USA starting fracking like crazy and the industry is sloppy about CH4 leaks?
Well we can’t really extract that from the data we were just shown, but it’s a good hypothesis that that was the single largest contributor. -14:14 graph on the right seems to show that oil n gas was indeed the largest manmade contributor to the increase in methane emissions between 2000 and 2010. And -10:20 map shows major sources of oil/gas, coal mining, and landfill concentrated in the US -and as you imply it is known that much of the oil/gas production within the US is activity that began post 2000
WIldfires are also a source of methane. There is a correlation between the time when fracking started and methane emissions increasing around 2007. FOund no study on this.... While major blame is given to agriculture and landfills. The solution for that fraction of methane is called anaerobic digestion.
All of the science I have read says the Arctic waters have not warmed enough to thaw the hydrates yet. That could also begin to happen sooner than expected.
Well, my understanding is if even one of the "tipping points" got "triggered" causing a "positive feedback loop" that is definitely not a good thing because then it simply can't be stopped. All the other loops 'n triggers 'n tips will get tipped 'n triggered... if I had to bet... it would be that global chaos will be well underway by 2030 because... say it with me!... you know the words!.... "Faster Than Expected!" Wheeee!
43% more drought conditions than I think 1980 was on one channel and 51% increase in radiative forcing since 1990 and 11.4% increase in CO2 in the last 20 years, floods, heatwaves, immediate starvation because of floods and total destruction of roads and services due to more volume of water that no insurance company wants and this is our current climate, I would say it's chaotic now so let's not be frogs in hot water and say oh it's ok and say it's hotter later, it's here now.
There is no climate emergency. Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light. It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather. the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
While I appreciate the effect of China's coal expansion, we cannot ignore the huge expansion that is currently underway in Australia. And the bit that I find the most troubling? The bit that I very rarely seen mentioned in these presentations? The measurements of fossil fuels in the atmosphere today are from activity from roughly 10 years ago. All the activity between now and then has not shown its ugly head, yet. And the huge increases in carbon & methane pollution of the last 10 years (and the massive expansion that continues today)? Well. All the doomsayers are only scratching the surface of what is coming down the turnpike towards us. Good luck, folks.
The hilarious thing is it’s not even mentioning one of the largest methane deposited in under the ice sheets just waiting to be released with the ice cap melt.
I'm glad to see this consolidation of data to reach these conclusions. I have thought for the last few years that the wetland production of CH4 was likely to increase because particularly in the north they region is warming more rapidly. I would like to see more detailed data on the year by year increase in CH4, but that data seems a little bit harder to come by. At the accelerated rate that CH4 is increasing it may over take the warming effect of CO2 in a decade or two. That's scary to contemplate!!
Do we even know for sure that it is feasible to 'stabilize' global climate now that we are comfortably above 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperature? The initial irreversible tipping point might have been some decades ago when we hit 0.5 degrees above our reference point.
Well it's never been stable, just the definition of what we define as stable won't exist anymore, you are right and I agree we are sliding down the slope and it started ages ago but it's where we, the globe, stops that matters. The earth absorbs heat and carbon naturally and if none were around we would be an ice ball, we are currently adding I think 4 or five times the amount of carbon than the earth can absorb. meaning the temps we go to will be around longer, now it might be a 2000 years warmer earth before it can cool with the drop in carbon instead of 10,000 If carbon in the atmosphere is water in a bucket and the hole in the bottom is carbon being absorbed, if we actually want the bucket empty weighting the bucket in a swimming pool and filling the pool is not the best way for that to happen There is 1000pg of carbon in the top 3 metres of permafrost, there is 4pg of carbon in the atmosphere.
What we know is that we have to slow emissions to a trickle and remove much of what we have put out there. And since we’ve waited so long, we have to shade to sun with some kind of atmospheric particles so we don’t cook in the meantime.
Global climate will stabilize one way or the other. The question isn't about whether it will stabilize, but rather what level of temperature and climate it will stabilize at. So things will look very different at an average planetary temperature of say 19 Degrees Celsius vs 24 Degrees Celsius, (or higher) Each degree the average temperature goes up, will change the climate more from the baseline civilization was designed around.
I enjoyed the presentation Peter, but one section is missing I think: what is the breakdown path for atmospheric methane, and therefore how sensitive concentration will be towards reducing the emissions?
How much will you pay to remove a tone? I have been looking at low-concentration bio-removal systems with feed concentrations below the flammability limits.
The emmissions and our numbers keep going up. Soon, the emmissions will trigger runaway heating, and our overshoot will be dealt with, but in a most inhumane manner.
Is there actually a way to phase out fossil fuels though? Even renewables require fossil fuels to build and manufacture. They use diesel trucks to transport wind turbines, solar panels are made by smelting quartz using coking coal. Phasing out fossil fuels means basically living with electricity quotas. I can't see it happening sadly.
This is a bit crazy feeling. It was clear back in 2012 that was already too late. We were supposed to be at 29 gigatons of carbon per year now and we are at 41 GB tons of carbon per year. Will you put so much methane in the atmosphere that it isn't decaying as fast as it used to which means it's going to have a larger effect and then they're currently estimating. Plus to see is baked in as of 2026. This is like when you put a pot of water on the stove and you turn the heat on underneath it. It will boil. If we were to stop all CO2 emissions today, after a temporary spike in heat due to the reduced aerosols, we would still reach + 1.9 c. The scenario we are in is actually taking us to plus 5c by 2100.
The most significant thing we can do is to let the population fall naturally. Stop having a panic over falling birth rates.. That panic is mostly driven by real estate owners and business owners who are afraid of declining value and falling profits as the population drops. We've doubled our population since 1960 and we could easily drop our population by half by 2080. Simply give effective birth control , give decent education and job opportunities to women,and let everyone have a smartphone to entertain themselves on and the drop will happen naturally.
Methane (CH4) is only 0.00019% (1.9 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Both of its narrow absorption bands occur at wavelengths where water vapour (H2O) is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. With the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere being between 1,000 and 20,000 times greater than CH4, the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. As we live on a 'water world' there is water vapour in the atmosphere wherever you are. This masking of any meagre effect by methane has only increased because there has been a global increase in total precipitable water (TPW) of 2 % per decade from 1993-2021.
Nonsense. You're ignoring the simple fact that water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for a short time. Methane accumulates for years before it turns into CO2.
@@sunspot6502 " You're ignoring the simple fact " That's what he does I'm afraid. He goes round these videos desperately trying to get everyone else to do the same. He's on a mission to misinform.
If we get runaway methane from drying wetlands and melting permafrost how much would be released into the atmosphere in the next 10 years and how hot would our biosphere get? 10c higher? Even if that only lasted for 5 years will many or most of mammals will die? We are mammals, by the way.
no quite the same thing, the clathrates are in the ocean, and unfortunately there is evidence that the shallow deposits are already destabilizing, and have been for possibly at least a decade.
@@miguel5785 Did you read where they said : "are the melting clathrates from permafrost next?" How does you question mean it's "simply false" apply? wetlands on a warming planet will double emissions, same as rice, so the statement till applies..
@@antonyjh1234 Yes, sorry, I mean the "slice" as in "percentage" is not increasing. It is anthropogenic methane emissions that are behind the total increase.
That's all bad. But it's much worse than that! You failed to mention the 1500 billion tons of methane stored under the Arctic Ice and permafrost in the form of methane hydrates/clathrates. You need a "Methane Part 2" video.
He didn't ignore it he simply didn't address what has not yet been one of the major sources of CH4 or at least hasn't quantified the effect of the current CH4 releases along the Arctic coastline. Because it has been observed being discharged.
Seems to be no doubt that there an amount of extra black body molecules between earth surface and outer space. Methane for example. That do absorb OLR on its way out to balance input. Can someone explain to me the mechanical thermodynamics by which this extra thermal energy from 60 miles of air overhead is walked all the way back down to actually heat the surface ? You can’t just automatically add it using black body math of solid black bodies. Can you ?
@@AlienfromY841 Well what can you do? Everything (including the agriculture) works with fossil fuels. So we are doomed if we do and doomed if we don't.
If I may repost a comment I made to someone else regarding ruminants, who said animal farming was responsible for 51-87% of emissions : "A lot of modern countries have the same herd size as a hundred years ago, so cattle are carbon neutral for the methane they emit in those countries. Using 86% of the farmland is a moot point when we don't do anything to it and the animals are no different than wild animals on the same ground, it is non arable land. Using edible calories is a really poor metric too, we use 99% of the animal not just the 55ish% that is the easiest to grow, using a metric of all the emissions pushed onto the edible and not include total energy calories is just wrong. If you used toilet paper this morning gelatine held together that paper. If it all needs to be replaced, then using just food and saying we can grow a replacement for pet food but it's not included in the metrics is really misleading to people. If America, a big meat-eating country, ALL animals are 5% of emissions, cattle are 65% of this an all cattle are raised on grass and just finished differently, in USA if cattle are on slaughter yard diets of chaff and corn, crop waste, for one day, they can't be classed as grass fed, other countries have a couple of months. Rice as just one industry emits more than beef, for what you say to be true about 51% of emissions then we could cut rice and beef out and we have solved global warming, of course this isn't true. I would believe 51% of methane, which Paul Beckwith on his Methane breakdown had Methane at 16%, I thought Co2e, so 51% would be 8% of the total emissions. Not a small amount but 80% of our emissions are from driving and CO2, methane doesn't stay around 10,000 years like carbon will, more crops with tractors are not the answer, NO2 increasing because of synthetic fertilisers made by gas, NO2 is 300 times worse than CO2, is not going to replace all that we get from animals that are on non-arable land, that we don't irrigate, fertilise or spray insecticides on. Feeding people is not the metric, the world had for sale enough food for everybody to get fatter last year, we have massive over consumption of meat directly because of the increase in crops we feed more crop waste to animals than what we grow for them globally. If in US again I think it's 5.9 Billion tons of human crop food and ALL animals take around a third of corn grown for them which is 350 million tons so lets say 150 million ton is grown for all animals and then cows take half of that. Where I live it is impossible to not get 100% grass fed, same as all western countries for sure and in no way will we replace what all animals give us with the 14% of their diet which is grown. 86% of what they eat, we can't, them turning it into products we can use and no further human activity needs to occur, means something and ignoring all that we get means we have an outdated idea based on flawed metrics still controlling conversation. These large animals need to stay on the ground, the loss of them would mean massive carbon losses in soil organisms, forests don't grow without nutrition so other animals there is going to change nothing in emissions because deer will move in. The story being all around what it is that we eat when it's such a small part of the overall picture really needs to stop, we could utilise them after they pass if that's that future but if we ignore crops need so much and I say this as ex vegan, a 3500% increase in numbers of vegans in America would generate so much crop waste and if we don't pass it through animals it would still emit to the atmosphere, so nothing has changed, the plants are only growing because of stored carbon being added and if the daily recommended amount of protein would be satisfied by herbivores then pigs, chickens and farmed fish wouldn't be needed. This is a simple metric because of exports but the point remains, we feed more crop waste to animals, mostly caged, going to more crops would make them carbon neutral because we would be growing nothing for them directly.
Thank you Peter. Sobering! Question though ... is there anyway to tell the quantities of methane emitted from man-made dams and fishfarming? It seems to me that an estimate of this would be useful too in completing the picture ...
Both candidates are owned by the elites. If you believe that you can *vote* your way out of our predicament then you’re gullible. The elites win either way. Revolution is the only hope.
It's a bit late to try & slow methane emissions, because wetland increases have initiated via warming. Even if we reduce carbon emissions & other sources of methane, wetland release isn't going to reduce. It only would if global air temp. dropped & that's not likely for many years after emissions are lowered. So that's a tipping point that's passed.
Feel free to share… I’m an Idiot (A parody based on Monty Python’s I’m a Lumberjack) Lead: I’m an idiot and that’s ok. I believe the lies media vomit out each day. Chorus: He’s an idiot and that’s ok He believes lies media vomit out each day. Lead: Let’s cut down trees. Let’s eat our lunch. Let’s go to the lavatory. Every day let’s go shopping and have buttered scones for tea. Chorus: We cut down trees. We eat our lunch. We go to the lavatory. Every day we’ll go shopping and have buttered scones with tea. We’re all idiots and that’s ok. We believe the lies media vomit out each day. Lead: I cut down trees, breathe wildfire smoke Bulldoze wild fields of flowers What bugs me most is watching Men dress up like me ma. Chorus: He cuts down trees, breathes wildfire smoke Bulldozes fields of flowers What bugs him most is watching Men dress up like his ma?… (As in the original, the Chorus fidgets and looks nervous, but resumes heartily on the refrain) We’re all idiots and that’s ok. We believe wha media vomiteaches up each day. Lead: I cut down trees, pollute the land, the oceans and the sky. I’m living large for right now. The rest of life can die. Chorus: He cuts down trees, pollutes the land, the ocean and the sky. He’s living large for right now. The rest of life can die…? (As in the original skit during this last bit the Chorus begins to breaks down, using questioning, agitated, raised voices but in this version turns and accosts the lead singer)
Animal farming is responsible for 51-87% of global greenhouse gas emissions. -World Watch, Journal of Ecological Society *UNFAO calculations have ‘failed to include the negative impact of forests lost to animal agriculture’.* Animal farming uses 83% of farmland and provides only 18% of calories. When we switch to a plant based food system, we can restore/reforest 76% of farmland AND be able to feed everyone. -J. Poore, Oxford, journal Science
Using a metric of all emissions pushed onto meat is a poor measurement If you look at one of Guy Mcphersons videos he explains because methane from cattle is gone after 100 years, if the herd size hasn't increased then no further warming from cattle has occurred. A lot of modern countries have the same herd size as a hundred years ago, so cattle are carbon neutral for the methane they emit in those countries. Using 86% of the farmland is a moot point when we don't do anything to it and the animals are no different than wild animals on the same ground, it is non arable land. Using edible calories is a really poor metric too, we use 99% of the animal not just the 55ish% that is the easiest to grow, using a metric of all the emissions pushed onto the edible and not include total energy calories is just wrong. If you used toilet paper this morning gelatine held together that paper. If it all needs to be replaced, then using just food and saying we can grow a replacement for pet food but it's not included in the metrics is really misleading to people. If America, a big meat-eating country, ALL animals are 5% of emissions, cattle are 65% of this an all cattle are raised on grass and just finished differently, in USA if cattle are on slaughter yard diets of chaff and corn, crop waste, for one day, they can't be classed as grass fed, other countries have a couple of months. Rice as just one industry emits more than beef, for what you say to be true about 51% of emissions then we could cut rice and beef out and we have solved global warming, of course this isn't true. I would believe 51% of methane, which Paul Beckwith on his Methane breakdown had Methane at 16%, I thought Co2e, so 51% would be 8% of the total emissions. Not a small amount but 80% of our emissions are from driving and CO2, methane doesn't stay around 10,000 years like carbon will, more crops with tractors are not the answer, NO2 increasing because of synthetic fertilisers made by gas, NO2 is 300 times worse than CO2, is not going to replace all that we get from animals that are on non-arable land, that we don't irrigate, fertilise or spray insecticides on. Feeding people is not the metric, the world had for sale enough food for everybody to get fatter last year, we have massive over consumption of meat directly because of the increase in crops we feed more crop waste to animals than what we grow for them globally. If in US again I think it's 5.9 Billion tons of human crop food and ALL animals take around a third of corn grown for them which is 350 million tons so lets say 150 million ton is grown for all animals and then cows take half of that. Where I live it is impossible to not get 100% grass fed, same as all western countries for sure and in no way will we replace what all animals give us with the 14% of their diet which is grown. 86% of what they eat, we can't, them turning it into products we can use and no further human activity needs to occur, means something and ignoring all that we get means we have an outdated idea based on flawed metrics still controlling conversation. These large animals need to stay on the ground, the loss of them would mean massive carbon losses in soil organisms, forests don't grow without nutrition so other animals there is going to change nothing in emissions because deer will move in. The story being all around what it is that we eat when it's such a small part of the overall picture really needs to stop, we could utilise them after they pass if that's that future but if we ignore crops need so much and I say this as ex vegan, a 3500% increase in numbers of vegans in America would generate so much crop waste and if we don't pass it through animals it would still emit to the atmosphere, so nothing has changed, the plants are only growing because of stored carbon being added and if the daily recommended amount of protein would be satisfied by herbivores then pigs, chickens and farmed fish wouldn't be needed. This is a simple metric because of exports but the point remains, we feed more crop waste to animals, mostly caged, going to more crops would make them carbon neutral because we would be growing nothing for them directly.
@antonyjh1234 Where does your belief come from that animals and the crops to feed them are only grown on non-arable land? Anecdotes and denial are subjective, and unable to be independently verified. Scientific evidence is objective and can be independently verified. Risk of death from cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, infections, kidney disease, liver disease and lung disease all increase with the amount of meat consumed. - National Cancer Institute Diets that contain meat and dairy are 50% more expensive than plant based diets (Lancet Health). 95% of the deforestation in the Amazon rainforest over the last 5 years was for raising cattle or growing soy to feed to cattle, to make beef. - United Nations Around 90% of the annual profit of farmers who graze livestock, comes from agricultural taxpayer subsidies. - DEFRA Animal farming is responsible for 51-87% of global greenhouse gas emissions. -World Watch, Journal of Ecological Society *UNFAO calculations have ‘failed to include the negative impact of forests lost to animal agriculture’.*
Methane and other GHG are increasing as a direct result of the industrialization era. Solar radiance has continued as it has for thousands of years at least. There is no reputable research that says otherwise.
@ Sounds regionally reasonable yet we can’t dismiss the notion of heated gases already present expanding in volume due to the heightened solar and heat activity at present.
@@WebenHad Except that that there aren't any milankovitch cycles that are active right and they won't be for several thousand years. Besides the Mylankivitch cycles are ten of thousands of years in length. The current warning started about a hundred years ago. Nor has any reputable scientist drawn a link to the milankovitch cycles.
Neither methane nor carbon dioxide are energy. Neither one of them warm anything. It takes energy to warm things. And sorry, gas molecules don't "trap" heat.
Usually exotherm reactions have co2 as a byproduct. Then you have energy and an infrared deflector, trapping the heat. Just had to help my 9yo nephew on this basic topic for his presentation. I hope he becomes a great scientist.
@piopapae2724 Where did you learn physics, Trump U? Gas molecules don't "deflect" infrared. They can scatter it (Raman active), they can absorb it (IR active), and in the upper atmosphere, they can emit it. But they don't reflect or deflect it. By the way, did you "teach" your nephew what heat is in a gas? I get the feeling he's learning junk science.
Humans and their pets and food animals are now 98.5% of the mass of all mammals on earth. But yes the cattle have largely replaced other ruminants, they aren't actually contributing that much to emissions increase. The religious vegans have just decided that climate change is another convenient way to attack meat eaters.
Very, very disturbing data, but very necessary for us to understand. Excellent presentation. Thank you, Peter!
I don’t think it matters that you understand, it’s the 10’s of millions of people that think it is Jesus planning his next holliday that need to understand this,
There is no climate emergency.
Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light.
It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather.
the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
@@keyboardoracle1044 Hey.. leave Motel 6 out of this…
Very stupid man
Excellent demonstration. Crazy how fast things are progressing.
Good pooling of data. I once did a talk on methane to the West Yorkshire Humanists, and had a comment or complaint afterwards saying I'd left some of the attendees traumatised.
Truth sometimes hurts
The fastest way to mitigate methane looks to me like the Global Carbon Reward. Methane is a much more dangerous gas so it’s mitigation is worth much more per ton.
There is no climate emergency.
Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light.
It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather.
the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
Even some who believe the climate is warming still want to deny how serious it is.
@@emceegreen8864 methane can't build up in the air because it oxidises readily when exposed to UV light. it's measured in parts per billion, it has no effect on the weather.
also warming is good, high CO2 is good, it's not as hot as it was during the medieval warm period.
we are so fucked
Proper
aye
do you eat animals and drive a car?
@robindao5 nope
@@robindao5 I eat cars and drive animals. Who was blaming anyone anyway? We’re just saying we’re fucked.
50 years of ecological overshoot. I fear Guy McPherson is right: it's irreversible.
I fear that uneducated people are too easily duped.
Nonsense. A brief nuclear exchange solves over-population, global warming, and Internet saturation in hours. Time for a push of the rinse and refresh button. You know we’ll get through the rough patch. As a species if not individually.
Yep. He is right.
The only possibility is to minimize, not reverse, and that is only if we completely stop all CO2 emissions and suffer the total awful collapse and horror resulting from that.
Humans, will not go extinct. 5 to 7 billion will not see 2030. Some biospheres will collapse, and many specie will go extinct-----BUT NOT ALL. Humans will leave short, uncomfortable, hard lives. We'll struggle to move and keep local biospheres, alive and going. It won't be easy. Few will live to see it. Few will want to experience it. A mass extinction is now occuring, and accelerating. Hang on to your hat ...
Thank you for illustrating that we're in runaway. We can't stop what's coming.
Yep, in my mind I was only 90% certain that we were going to hit one of the tipping points in the next year or two. Today I find out it's already too late. Methane feedback from Wetlands already started in '22. AND still no action from any of our governments, but the politicians are getting paid handsomely by fossil fuel interests. AND the COP process captured by the same vested interests. It's gonna take some very serious people power to turn this ship around AND I don't see that happening either.
We are not in runaway just yet: once the arctic methane starts a roaring boil in the oceans.... then we are within 2-3 years of existence on this planet.
@@marcplante8760 we’ve been in runaway for decades. The lag effect (GHGs staying in the atmosphere even if we miraculously stopped emitting tomorrow) means that there is no possible reversal. We won’t even be able to stop it. And slowing would be negligible, but humanity won’t even try. Business As Usual until collapse, and collapse is coming any year now,
From their website: "Over the past two decades, emissions from natural sources haven’t changed while emissions from human activities have increased significantly"
True, but we can lessen the blow IF we want to. So far there's little sign that we want to change course at all.
Thank you, Peter, for another presentation of the most important news in the history of our planet. Too bad so many just don't care that we are destroying our environment. We are going to need a miracle to survive, but we don't deserve one.
Utterly insane.
Has humanity shot itself in the foot? Well... no. Far worse than the foot.
We are entering the age of recrimination even though we know the reason.
Not humanity no. Just a bunch of industrial morons in a very short period which is less than 1% of the time humanity has existed.
@@BufordTGleason Recrimination? It not possible to learn a lesson from extinction...
If we shoot ourselves in the foot does that mean we get to be sent home from Earth
There is no climate emergency.
Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light.
It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather.
the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
Thank you Peter, for your perseverance and tenacity to truth telling. Have you seen the film 'Don't Look Up'? That's where we are, certainly collectively and mostly individually. The Worst Case Scenarios will soon be upon us, as there are no global intentions to de-grow any economies or populations of consumers.
Natural population decline is a short time away, but will probably still happen too late if we don't start doing some other things in a significant way now.
As gut wrenching it is to see these graphs and the implication of the rising values, I really appreciate your work explaining these complex problems in a way that is irrefutable. Thank you.
There is no climate emergency.
Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light.
It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather.
the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
Great job as always, thank you Peter.
Merci beaucoup mr Peter Carter !
Thank you for this update. The CH4 story is often left untold. I wonder if you could prepare an explanation on CH4s ability to trap heat relative to CO2 in another video. This story needs a good story teller, good graphics, etc., and I think you are the man for this job. One sees so many different numbers for 20-fold, 80-fold, etc., and I know why that is but most do not and it is not a nice neat, clean story, depends upon local conditions to some extent for half-life, and so on. Maybe you can crack this nut and come up with a nice neat story to explain how CH4 hangs around, or goes to CO2 and why, and if it hangs around, what potent heat trapping ability it has. I think if you can nail this, it's sure to be a classic, timeless video. Wild card, it's already been done and I cannot find it??
Thanks... tom grizzle
There is 1000 petagrams of carbon in the top 3 metres of permafrost, there is 4 petagrams of carbon in the atmosphere.
I guess for deep subterranean bacteria its just another day or whatever passes for time down there .
The great elephant in the room has always been the incredible leaks and burn offs are nothing like projected long ago to prove there was no danger. How can that not be a problem.
The world is awash in cheap gas, Qatari govt liquefy it to turn it into jet fuel and give it to Qatar Airways.
Australia is full of leaky pipes From CLOSED mining sites. The environmental scientists have been filing reports with the government for years. No one is held accountable because they are no longer in business. The government can’t afford to pay the maintenance costs. So the leaks continue. 🫣
Sounding very clear Peter
I couldn't imagine it not being so! Expecting humans to curb their appetite for growth & exploitation is delusional!
I lost hope when the number of large pickup trucks outnumbered SUV’s in “Green” Vermont.
Most people are ignorant by design, emergent response can only happen when they know and when I say know, I mean really know what is being hidden from them by their govts and media.
@@antonyjh1234have you seen the cultists on both sides? The hopium is nauseating 😕
@@katiekane5247 What does cultists on both sides even mean? Hopium for what, a better earth, or at least liveable? Sorry really confused on what your intent of what your words mean.
@@antonyjh1234 Maybe she means the new agers who talk about going from 3D to 5D and on the other side de climate change deniers?
It seems like the curve up in CH4 globally in the early 2000's was because the USA starting fracking like crazy and the industry is sloppy about CH4 leaks?
Clathrates
Well we can’t really extract that from the data we were just shown, but it’s a good hypothesis that that was the single largest contributor.
-14:14 graph on the right seems to show that oil n gas was indeed the largest manmade contributor to the increase in methane emissions between 2000 and 2010. And
-10:20 map shows major sources of oil/gas, coal mining, and landfill concentrated in the US
-and as you imply it is known that much of the oil/gas production within the US is activity that began post 2000
5:40 shows the inflection around, say, 2007 fairly well. What was causing the decreasing rate up to about 2005? Then what caused the increase?
I assumed that too but isotope ratio indicates it isn't a fossil source. So, melting permafrost, cows etc?
WIldfires are also a source of methane. There is a correlation between the time when fracking started and methane emissions increasing around 2007. FOund no study on this.... While major blame is given to agriculture and landfills. The solution for that fraction of methane is called anaerobic digestion.
What about methane hydrates? What about cumulative measurements taken over the last 20 odd years in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf?
All of the science I have read says the Arctic waters have not warmed enough to thaw the hydrates yet. That could also begin to happen sooner than expected.
Well, my understanding is if even one of the "tipping points" got "triggered" causing a "positive feedback loop" that is definitely not a good thing because then it simply can't be stopped. All the other loops 'n triggers 'n tips will get tipped 'n triggered... if I had to bet... it would be that global chaos will be well underway by 2030 because... say it with me!... you know the words!.... "Faster Than Expected!" Wheeee!
43% more drought conditions than I think 1980 was on one channel and 51% increase in radiative forcing since 1990 and 11.4% increase in CO2 in the last 20 years, floods, heatwaves, immediate starvation because of floods and total destruction of roads and services due to more volume of water that no insurance company wants and this is our current climate, I would say it's chaotic now so let's not be frogs in hot water and say oh it's ok and say it's hotter later, it's here now.
id like this video to get more attention so im giving it a full sentence comment for the algo
There is no climate emergency.
Methane cannot build up in the air because it oxides readily when exposed to UV light.
It's measured in parts per billion and at such small amounts can have no significant effect on the weather.
the greenhouse effect is due almost entirely to water vapour.
While I appreciate the effect of China's coal expansion, we cannot ignore the huge expansion that is currently underway in Australia.
And the bit that I find the most troubling? The bit that I very rarely seen mentioned in these presentations? The measurements of fossil fuels in the atmosphere today are from activity from roughly 10 years ago. All the activity between now and then has not shown its ugly head, yet. And the huge increases in carbon & methane pollution of the last 10 years (and the massive expansion that continues today)? Well. All the doomsayers are only scratching the surface of what is coming down the turnpike towards us. Good luck, folks.
Thanks.
The hilarious thing is it’s not even mentioning one of the largest methane deposited in under the ice sheets just waiting to be released with the ice cap melt.
I'm glad to see this consolidation of data to reach these conclusions. I have thought for the last few years that the wetland production of CH4 was likely to increase because particularly in the north they region is warming more rapidly. I would like to see more detailed data on the year by year increase in CH4, but that data seems a little bit harder to come by.
At the accelerated rate that CH4 is increasing it may over take the warming effect of CO2 in a decade or two. That's scary to contemplate!!
Do we even know for sure that it is feasible to 'stabilize' global climate now that we are comfortably above 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperature? The initial irreversible tipping point might have been some decades ago when we hit 0.5 degrees above our reference point.
Yes its fn feasible, just stop burning fossil fuels and oceans will soak up atm co2
No, we don't know that for sure. But we owe it to the future to at least try.
Well it's never been stable, just the definition of what we define as stable won't exist anymore, you are right and I agree we are sliding down the slope and it started ages ago but it's where we, the globe, stops that matters.
The earth absorbs heat and carbon naturally and if none were around we would be an ice ball, we are currently adding I think 4 or five times the amount of carbon than the earth can absorb. meaning the temps we go to will be around longer, now it might be a 2000 years warmer earth before it can cool with the drop in carbon instead of 10,000
If carbon in the atmosphere is water in a bucket and the hole in the bottom is carbon being absorbed, if we actually want the bucket empty weighting the bucket in a swimming pool and filling the pool is not the best way for that to happen
There is 1000pg of carbon in the top 3 metres of permafrost, there is 4pg of carbon in the atmosphere.
What we know is that we have to slow emissions to a trickle and remove much of what we have put out there.
And since we’ve waited so long, we have to shade to sun with some kind of atmospheric particles so we don’t cook in the meantime.
Global climate will stabilize one way or the other.
The question isn't about whether it will stabilize, but rather what level of temperature and climate it will stabilize at.
So things will look very different at an average planetary temperature of say 19 Degrees Celsius vs 24 Degrees Celsius, (or higher)
Each degree the average temperature goes up, will change the climate more from the baseline civilization was designed around.
Thank you for confirming my observations as well with your greatly appreciated reliable information.
I enjoyed the presentation Peter, but one section is missing I think: what is the breakdown path for atmospheric methane, and therefore how sensitive concentration will be towards reducing the emissions?
Merci pour ces informations tres claires sur le methane.
😌🙏🕉
How much will you pay to remove a tone? I have been looking at low-concentration bio-removal systems with feed concentrations below the flammability limits.
Fossil fuels will be phased out as humans are phased out. Can't see a feasible alternative that reduces waste, energy use and agricultural sources.
Good afternoon Dr Peter
Do you include permafrost in wetlands ?
I guess you haven't watched the whole video, but yes.
See Dr Thomas P Sheahen, 'Methane - the irrelevant greenhouse gas'.
The emmissions and our numbers keep going up. Soon, the emmissions will trigger runaway heating, and our overshoot will be dealt with, but in a most inhumane manner.
Still waiting patiently for the data to come in from Methane Sat
Is there actually a way to phase out fossil fuels though? Even renewables require fossil fuels to build and manufacture. They use diesel trucks to transport wind turbines, solar panels are made by smelting quartz using coking coal. Phasing out fossil fuels means basically living with electricity quotas. I can't see it happening sadly.
Frightening……
This is a bit crazy feeling.
It was clear back in 2012 that was already too late.
We were supposed to be at 29 gigatons of carbon per year now and we are at 41 GB tons of carbon per year.
Will you put so much methane in the atmosphere that it isn't decaying as fast as it used to which means it's going to have a larger effect and then they're currently estimating.
Plus to see is baked in as of 2026.
This is like when you put a pot of water on the stove and you turn the heat on underneath it. It will boil.
If we were to stop all CO2 emissions today, after a temporary spike in heat due to the reduced aerosols, we would still reach + 1.9 c.
The scenario we are in is actually taking us to plus 5c by 2100.
The most significant thing we can do is to let the population fall naturally. Stop having a panic over falling birth rates..
That panic is mostly driven by real estate owners and business owners who are afraid of declining value and falling profits as the population drops.
We've doubled our population since 1960 and we could easily drop our population by half by 2080.
Simply give effective birth control , give decent education and job opportunities to women,and let everyone have a smartphone to entertain themselves on and the drop will happen naturally.
I thought it was starting to smell a bit eggy outside.
Methane (CH4) is only 0.00019% (1.9 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Both of its narrow absorption bands occur at wavelengths where water vapour (H2O) is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. With the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere being between 1,000 and 20,000 times greater than CH4, the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O.
As we live on a 'water world' there is water vapour in the atmosphere wherever you are. This masking of any meagre effect by methane has only increased because there has been a global increase in total precipitable water (TPW) of 2 % per decade from 1993-2021.
Enjoy denial while it last
@Jc-ms5vv You can't deny the facts.
@ yet here you’re
Nonsense. You're ignoring the simple fact that water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for a short time. Methane accumulates for years before it turns into CO2.
@@sunspot6502 " You're ignoring the simple fact "
That's what he does I'm afraid.
He goes round these videos desperately trying to get everyone else to do the same.
He's on a mission to misinform.
It doesn't look good when it's worse than a J curve, is there such a thing? Well, if not we are close to it.
Thank you for sharing with us, if only the powers that be would darn well listen!
We have to look at the news to know that this is all true.
If we get runaway methane from drying wetlands and melting permafrost how much would be released into the atmosphere in the next 10 years and how hot would our biosphere get? 10c higher? Even if that only lasted for 5 years will many or most of mammals will die? We are mammals, by the way.
With natural wetlands becoming an increasingly large slice of atmospheric methane, are the melting clathrates from permafrost next?
no quite the same thing, the clathrates are in the ocean, and unfortunately there is evidence that the shallow deposits are already destabilizing, and have been for possibly at least a decade.
@@jonovens7974 wot jon said @ThatOneNick .
There is 1000 petagrams of carbon in the top 3 metres of permafrost, there is 4 petagrams of carbon in the atmosphere.
@@miguel5785 Did you read where they said : "are the melting clathrates from permafrost next?"
How does you question mean it's "simply false" apply?
wetlands on a warming planet will double emissions, same as rice, so the statement till applies..
@@antonyjh1234 Yes, sorry, I mean the "slice" as in "percentage" is not increasing. It is anthropogenic methane emissions that are behind the total increase.
Trump's "Golden Age" of a planet nicely toasted to a crisp...
Immediately later maybe
Where has the 'RED PILL' stuff gone?????
Massive hot air today...
That's all bad. But it's much worse than that! You failed to mention the 1500 billion tons of methane stored under the Arctic Ice and permafrost in the form of methane hydrates/clathrates. You need a "Methane Part 2" video.
He didn't ignore it he simply didn't address what has not yet been one of the major sources of CH4 or at least hasn't quantified the effect of the current CH4 releases along the Arctic coastline. Because it has been observed being discharged.
Seems to be no doubt that there an amount of extra black body molecules between earth surface and outer space. Methane for example. That do absorb OLR on its way out to balance input.
Can someone explain to me the mechanical thermodynamics by which this extra thermal energy from 60 miles of air overhead is walked all the way back down to actually heat the surface ?
You can’t just automatically add it using black body math of solid black bodies. Can you ?
The man running for President in the USA said drill baby drill. Dumb baby dumb.
Tbf they both are very eager to drill
@@AlienfromY841 Well what can you do? Everything (including the agriculture) works with fossil fuels.
So we are doomed if we do and doomed if we don't.
This is a comment for the Algo boost!
The wetlands are creating methane loops
There are over 13,000,000 miles of human large colon here at this time. Shurley they are producing methane too?
Some of the intestines are plugged by individuals' heads, so it all can't be counted.
Humans are not rumiants, so we produce much less methane. Not really worth mentioning.
If I may repost a comment I made to someone else regarding ruminants, who said animal farming was responsible for 51-87% of emissions :
"A lot of modern countries have the same herd size as a hundred years ago, so cattle are carbon neutral for the methane they emit in those countries.
Using 86% of the farmland is a moot point when we don't do anything to it and the animals are no different than wild animals on the same ground, it is non arable land.
Using edible calories is a really poor metric too, we use 99% of the animal not just the 55ish% that is the easiest to grow, using a metric of all the emissions pushed onto the edible and not include total energy calories is just wrong. If you used toilet paper this morning gelatine held together that paper. If it all needs to be replaced, then using just food and saying we can grow a replacement for pet food but it's not included in the metrics is really misleading to people.
If America, a big meat-eating country, ALL animals are 5% of emissions, cattle are 65% of this an all cattle are raised on grass and just finished differently, in USA if cattle are on slaughter yard diets of chaff and corn, crop waste, for one day, they can't be classed as grass fed, other countries have a couple of months.
Rice as just one industry emits more than beef, for what you say to be true about 51% of emissions then we could cut rice and beef out and we have solved global warming, of course this isn't true. I would believe 51% of methane, which Paul Beckwith on his Methane breakdown had Methane at 16%, I thought Co2e, so 51% would be 8% of the total emissions. Not a small amount but 80% of our emissions are from driving and CO2, methane doesn't stay around 10,000 years like carbon will, more crops with tractors are not the answer, NO2 increasing because of synthetic fertilisers made by gas, NO2 is 300 times worse than CO2, is not going to replace all that we get from animals that are on non-arable land, that we don't irrigate, fertilise or spray insecticides on.
Feeding people is not the metric, the world had for sale enough food for everybody to get fatter last year, we have massive over consumption of meat directly because of the increase in crops we feed more crop waste to animals than what we grow for them globally. If in US again I think it's 5.9 Billion tons of human crop food and ALL animals take around a third of corn grown for them which is 350 million tons so lets say 150 million ton is grown for all animals and then cows take half of that.
Where I live it is impossible to not get 100% grass fed, same as all western countries for sure and in no way will we replace what all animals give us with the 14% of their diet which is grown.
86% of what they eat, we can't, them turning it into products we can use and no further human activity needs to occur, means something and ignoring all that we get means we have an outdated idea based on flawed metrics still controlling conversation.
These large animals need to stay on the ground, the loss of them would mean massive carbon losses in soil organisms, forests don't grow without nutrition so other animals there is going to change nothing in emissions because deer will move in.
The story being all around what it is that we eat when it's such a small part of the overall picture really needs to stop, we could utilise them after they pass if that's that future but if we ignore crops need so much and I say this as ex vegan, a 3500% increase in numbers of vegans in America would generate so much crop waste and if we don't pass it through animals it would still emit to the atmosphere, so nothing has changed, the plants are only growing because of stored carbon being added and if the daily recommended amount of protein would be satisfied by herbivores then pigs, chickens and farmed fish wouldn't be needed. This is a simple metric because of exports but the point remains, we feed more crop waste to animals, mostly caged, going to more crops would make them carbon neutral because we would be growing nothing for them directly.
Just the vegans.
More bad news for sure
Toby ruins it for everyone
Yes! but who is Taylor swift dating?
Thank you Peter. Sobering! Question though ... is there anyway to tell the quantities of methane emitted from man-made dams and fishfarming? It seems to me that an estimate of this would be useful too in completing the picture ...
8.5 8.5 8.5!!!
The man running for President of the USA just said the next four years will be the Golden Age. The Golden Age, I think not.
Both candidates are owned by the elites. If you believe that you can *vote* your way out of our predicament then you’re gullible. The elites win either way. Revolution is the only hope.
'The Next President'
a 47 years old song from
Freddie McCoy dit Ahmed Sofi
Elizaveta Khromova team, mathematical model prediction
2025 bim, 2026 bum, 2027 bam, 2028 puff ....
2036 Earth = Mars
More like a dark age if he gets in, as in crispy bacon dark.
😢😢😢
It's a bit late to try & slow methane emissions, because wetland increases have initiated via warming. Even if we reduce carbon emissions & other sources of methane, wetland release isn't going to reduce. It only would if global air temp. dropped & that's not likely for many years after emissions are lowered. So that's a tipping point that's passed.
Fine ✨
Our house is on fire and our new President here in the USA says. Add more wood.
The added fake regression lines at 1:07 are criminally bad.
Feel free to share…
I’m an Idiot
(A parody based on Monty Python’s I’m a Lumberjack)
Lead: I’m an idiot and that’s ok.
I believe the lies media vomit out each day.
Chorus: He’s an idiot and that’s ok
He believes lies media vomit out each day.
Lead: Let’s cut down trees. Let’s eat our lunch. Let’s go to the lavatory.
Every day let’s go shopping and have buttered scones for tea.
Chorus: We cut down trees. We eat our lunch.
We go to the lavatory.
Every day we’ll go shopping and have buttered scones with tea.
We’re all idiots and that’s ok. We believe the lies media vomit out each day.
Lead: I cut down trees, breathe wildfire smoke
Bulldoze wild fields of flowers
What bugs me most is watching
Men dress up like me ma.
Chorus: He cuts down trees, breathes wildfire smoke
Bulldozes fields of flowers
What bugs him most is watching
Men dress up like his ma?…
(As in the original, the Chorus fidgets and looks nervous, but resumes heartily on the refrain)
We’re all idiots and that’s ok.
We believe wha media vomiteaches up each day.
Lead: I cut down trees, pollute the land, the oceans and the sky. I’m living large for right now. The rest of life can die.
Chorus: He cuts down trees, pollutes the land, the ocean and the sky. He’s living large for right now. The rest of life can die…?
(As in the original skit during this last bit the Chorus begins to breaks down, using questioning, agitated, raised voices but in this version turns and accosts the lead singer)
If methane only lasts 10 years how then do you get records going back 1000's of years 🤔
fake
🌎🪦
Animal farming is responsible for 51-87% of global greenhouse gas emissions. -World Watch, Journal of Ecological Society *UNFAO calculations have ‘failed to include the negative impact of forests lost to animal agriculture’.*
Animal farming uses 83% of farmland and provides only 18% of calories. When we switch to a plant based food system, we can restore/reforest 76% of farmland AND be able to feed everyone. -J. Poore, Oxford, journal Science
Using a metric of all emissions pushed onto meat is a poor measurement
If you look at one of Guy Mcphersons videos he explains because methane from cattle is gone after 100 years, if the herd size hasn't increased then no further warming from cattle has occurred.
A lot of modern countries have the same herd size as a hundred years ago, so cattle are carbon neutral for the methane they emit in those countries.
Using 86% of the farmland is a moot point when we don't do anything to it and the animals are no different than wild animals on the same ground, it is non arable land.
Using edible calories is a really poor metric too, we use 99% of the animal not just the 55ish% that is the easiest to grow, using a metric of all the emissions pushed onto the edible and not include total energy calories is just wrong. If you used toilet paper this morning gelatine held together that paper. If it all needs to be replaced, then using just food and saying we can grow a replacement for pet food but it's not included in the metrics is really misleading to people.
If America, a big meat-eating country, ALL animals are 5% of emissions, cattle are 65% of this an all cattle are raised on grass and just finished differently, in USA if cattle are on slaughter yard diets of chaff and corn, crop waste, for one day, they can't be classed as grass fed, other countries have a couple of months.
Rice as just one industry emits more than beef, for what you say to be true about 51% of emissions then we could cut rice and beef out and we have solved global warming, of course this isn't true. I would believe 51% of methane, which Paul Beckwith on his Methane breakdown had Methane at 16%, I thought Co2e, so 51% would be 8% of the total emissions. Not a small amount but 80% of our emissions are from driving and CO2, methane doesn't stay around 10,000 years like carbon will, more crops with tractors are not the answer, NO2 increasing because of synthetic fertilisers made by gas, NO2 is 300 times worse than CO2, is not going to replace all that we get from animals that are on non-arable land, that we don't irrigate, fertilise or spray insecticides on.
Feeding people is not the metric, the world had for sale enough food for everybody to get fatter last year, we have massive over consumption of meat directly because of the increase in crops we feed more crop waste to animals than what we grow for them globally. If in US again I think it's 5.9 Billion tons of human crop food and ALL animals take around a third of corn grown for them which is 350 million tons so lets say 150 million ton is grown for all animals and then cows take half of that.
Where I live it is impossible to not get 100% grass fed, same as all western countries for sure and in no way will we replace what all animals give us with the 14% of their diet which is grown.
86% of what they eat, we can't, them turning it into products we can use and no further human activity needs to occur, means something and ignoring all that we get means we have an outdated idea based on flawed metrics still controlling conversation.
These large animals need to stay on the ground, the loss of them would mean massive carbon losses in soil organisms, forests don't grow without nutrition so other animals there is going to change nothing in emissions because deer will move in.
The story being all around what it is that we eat when it's such a small part of the overall picture really needs to stop, we could utilise them after they pass if that's that future but if we ignore crops need so much and I say this as ex vegan, a 3500% increase in numbers of vegans in America would generate so much crop waste and if we don't pass it through animals it would still emit to the atmosphere, so nothing has changed, the plants are only growing because of stored carbon being added and if the daily recommended amount of protein would be satisfied by herbivores then pigs, chickens and farmed fish wouldn't be needed. This is a simple metric because of exports but the point remains, we feed more crop waste to animals, mostly caged, going to more crops would make them carbon neutral because we would be growing nothing for them directly.
@antonyjh1234 Where does your belief come from that animals and the crops to feed them are only grown on non-arable land?
Anecdotes and denial are subjective, and unable to be independently verified. Scientific evidence is objective and can be independently verified.
Risk of death from cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, infections, kidney disease, liver disease and lung disease all increase with the amount of meat consumed. - National Cancer Institute
Diets that contain meat and dairy are 50% more expensive than plant based diets (Lancet Health).
95% of the deforestation in the Amazon rainforest over the last 5 years was for raising cattle or growing soy to feed to cattle, to make beef. - United Nations
Around 90% of the annual profit of farmers who graze livestock, comes from agricultural taxpayer subsidies. - DEFRA
Animal farming is responsible for 51-87% of global greenhouse gas emissions. -World Watch, Journal of Ecological Society *UNFAO calculations have ‘failed to include the negative impact of forests lost to animal agriculture’.*
😮
Methane and Solar activity increasing accordingly.
Methane and other GHG are increasing as a direct result of the industrialization era. Solar radiance has continued as it has for thousands of years at least. There is no reputable research that says otherwise.
@ Sounds regionally reasonable yet we can’t dismiss the notion of heated gases already present expanding in volume due to the heightened solar and heat activity at present.
@ Milenkovich Cycles are somewhat reputable research which would explain the current heightened Solar Activity it’s not totally arbitrary.
@@WebenHad Except that that there aren't any milankovitch cycles that are active right and they won't be for several thousand years. Besides the Mylankivitch cycles are ten of thousands of years in length. The current warning started about a hundred years ago.
Nor has any reputable scientist drawn a link to the milankovitch cycles.
You state all that with such averous one could almost be convinced you are the ultimate authority .. I’ll sleep better problem solved.
College Welfare Queens
Magnetics affect the air-chemistry. Earth's magnetosphere IS weakening, allowing in more solar and cosmic energy.
Yeah, sure it does. 🙄
What? No mention of the Black Hole in our solar system that's going to swallow the Earth within the next year? Seems like that would be important.
12.000 years cosmic ray cycle
Elizaveta Khromova team mathematical model prediction
2025, 2026/2027 bim bum bam
2028 pfuff, 2036 Earth= Mars
There is no known black hole in our solar system though I'm sure that is one of the stories you tell yourself..
@michaeldeierhoi4096
EXACTLY! Someone finally caught on...sorta. I figure if we're going to talk about myths, let's throw a few more out there.
Neither methane nor carbon dioxide are energy. Neither one of them warm anything. It takes energy to warm things. And sorry, gas molecules don't "trap" heat.
Usually exotherm reactions have co2 as a byproduct. Then you have energy and an infrared deflector, trapping the heat. Just had to help my 9yo nephew on this basic topic for his presentation. I hope he becomes a great scientist.
@piopapae2724
Where did you learn physics, Trump U? Gas molecules don't "deflect" infrared. They can scatter it (Raman active), they can absorb it (IR active), and in the upper atmosphere, they can emit it. But they don't reflect or deflect it.
By the way, did you "teach" your nephew what heat is in a gas? I get the feeling he's learning junk science.
@@piopapae2724
By the way, heat in a gas is NOT infrared and it's NOT the vibrational component of molecules.
What’s the point you’re trying to make?
@@pgl0897
See where it says "neither one of them warm anything?"
This really rattled me 😮
Cattle??? What about elephants, bear,mosses, deer, caribou and thousand of other animals!!!
Leave us alone!!! We want our beef!!!!
Humans and their pets and food animals are now 98.5% of the mass of all mammals on earth. But yes the cattle have largely replaced other ruminants, they aren't actually contributing that much to emissions increase. The religious vegans have just decided that climate change is another convenient way to attack meat eaters.