My day job is working as a biochar developer for a rewilding initiative in Sussex England. I’m experimenting with developing low emission systems for turning (otherwise left to rot) byproduct biomass into biochar carbon. Then adding it into and onto the soil inoculated with mycorrhizal sporulates to attempt an accelerated rewilding of previously impoverished post industrial land. Experimental tests are so far encouraging enough to suggest a far faster increase in soil biomass carbon sequestration over and above the biochar carbon being added. If this could be implemented broadly on small scale then it would become possible to draw down millions of tonnes of carbon from the carbon cycle and lock it back into the soil and out of the atmosphere. At the same time as dramatically improving soil fertility, negating the need for petrochemical fertilisers and helping to bring back habitat and biodiversity. I’m working hard at it to see if it will help. Thinking ‘terra preta’ wise, we may have lost connection to nature, to spirit and to ancient technologies however it is all possible to regain if we can be brave and face uncomfortable truths. Changing our habits and daring to take risks, be bold and strive to want less material possessions. Wildroots Wood.
Happy to be working, eating. and living in a safe dwelling. The water is potable, the air is excellent. I'm glad you have a project. You can't save the earth. But you can do your thing while watching the Western Industrial civilization crumble. Mutual aid coming your way.
People do not want to think about giving up a life style that measures their success by how much fossils fuel they can afford to burn. It's very impressive to burn fuel.
Humans produce methane, that's why I am waiting to have kids. It would be cruel to bring them into a world with so many problems. We should still take care over the ones we already have. Sorry to all parents(You should have prepared better.).😅❤ If kids are annoying, we should try to have less of them, especially in countries where living is difficult because of poverty. You know which part of the world I refer to(It's wrong to call it the third world, but yeah you do bring problems up north.).😅 Sorry.
When I was born in 1947, the world population was about 2.4 billion, today 8.2 billion. We all fart approximately 14 times a day. I read a piece on demographics some years ago that the population would top out at about at about 9.8 billion ( since revised to 10.4 billion) then over the next 150 years the population would fall to about 3.8 billion putting the world in a better place
I admire, how you always manage to tightrope all these gloomy news in a very entertaining, funny, yet still professional and thought provoking manner! Seems to be a British quality, like shops, who were bombed during air raids in WW2, and put out signs the next day like 'even more open today!". Humour seems to be the best strategy to not succumb to all the bad news surrounding us.
Thank you so much for including fugitive emissions. I've heard that only 5% methane emissions from leaks in the piping system cancels out all of methane's "clean burning" advantages, and that's basically where we are at when it comes to leaks, making natural gas a total clean energy mirage.
@@TheMinimumPC I don't know if they're mom-and-pop oil wells, but over the past 100 years, companies have put in wells and then realized it was more expensive to fill them in and cap them properly than to just walk away and drill a new one five mile down the road. Appalachia is full of them.
same goes for Alberta, Canada... that place is a catastrophe when it comes to abandoned or orphaned gas wells, they even have a corporate fund that oil & gas corporations are supposed to be paying into, to reclaim well and clean up after extraction, but it isn't paid into well enough, and now taxpayers foot the bill
The fact that methane that could be industrially burned is instead left to be a WORSE greenhouse gas, while more is drilled for is beyond upsetting. It will always be more profitable to mine and destroy unregulated resources
@@daispy101 to an extent. If all candidates are "pro business" then it's more a matter of how much pollution we get, thus the problem. There might be candidates around the world running on ecologically sustainable measures, but not that I know of in the US. Choices are bad or worse 🙃
@@hungrydna He would tell you himself. Propaganda has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of a claim. A lot of propaganda has absolutely no information at all. Norman Rockwell paintings are a perfect example of that.
One of the places to start is in changing how we deal with organic waste, including human waste. Our current sewage systems have had very positive impacts on human health, but they are responsible for horrendous losses of critical plant nutrients like phosphorus, which have a finite available supply, and additionally they are significant sources of methane emissions. Aerobic composting at high enough temperatures to sterilize the organics, and recycling as plant nutrients, is critical. However, the big problem is illegal dumping of toxic metals like cadmium into our sewage system. Implementing continuous monitoring of sewage flows for metals and toxic substances is needed, and a large scale program to recycle these organics and their critical plant nutrients.
@@Gilotopia No, methane isn't carbon neutral. Methane is significantly more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. And it's not even carbon neutral from a chemical perspective because each methane molecule has a carbon atom.
Over 10 years ago I had an "argument" online with a "engineer" who followed the then popular thinking that natural gas was our solution away from burning coal and so a solution for CO2 global warming. My point was other research that clarified that if only 3% of the natural gas pumped from place to place around the US leaked than the emissions of methane would make the use of natural gas more problematic than using coal. Actual figures suggested that the number was closer to a 12% leakage from pipelines. Now on top of this I have seen numbers that suggest we only are able to collect 20 to 30% of the natural gas produced from fracking and there are large areas above natural gas fracking fields satalites have shown with increased natural gas emissions.
Those stories were all over the news. I bet the vast majority still believe it. Come to think of it I do believe coal is worse than natural gas. What a scary thought. It does seem like our fixes keep making more problems than they solve. I have already heard we need to remove wet lands because they produce methane.
We're all run into the "engineers", there's a stratum of retired white men flooding board with their often outdated (but once real) expertise. They largely overlap with the Nuclear fanboys. The reason for their opinions is typically rooted in the right wing propaganda they absorb through Fox and WSJ. And they're sooo much smarter than all those climate dupes...
Do note that natural gas is generally considered an unwanted byproduct of the oil industry. They make some money on it, but it's not their cash cow like heavier hydrocarbons. Yes I know there's dedicated gas fields and fracking etc, but monetary value is still low. So low, that your 12% figure whether accurate or not really isn't economical to repair without environmental laws requiring it. (one of the few areas where I can support stronger regulations) So, by far, the biggest emitters of methane by the oil industry is in warm countries without environmental regulations. This is where you're lucky if they even attempt to flare off the methane. Where I live leaks are treated very seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage is is sub 1% by volume, but I don't have much proof to back that up.
Also remember that all these "green" solutions are not really green. They're less harmful than _____. So LNG is "less harmful" than burning diesel or petrol but it is in no way "green". Calling a LNG garbage truck a "green solution" is laughably incorrect. This is just greenwashing by the industry to get people on board with another one of their products.
A mere 17% increase in Methane emissions over the last 30 years is impossibly low, a cover up. This is common sense. The increase in emissions since the 1990's due to expansion of cattle farming, natural gas extraction, processing and delivery, human waste, and landfills would far exceed a 17% increase. Fracking alone is a huge new source of fugitive Methane emissions.
It's based on outdated collection methodology. Over the last year or two, we've been "amazed" to find new sources of methane all over the place, along with the amounts we were already tracking being woefully underreported. I used to be heavily involved in ranching/cattle and i can tell you right now they're vastly underreporting all their information and there's a legit effort to keep that data from ever being properly tracked/reported. US universities have been caught, looking at you UC davis, working with the cattle industry to fudge numbers. The industry, just a few months ago, got caught grossly misrepresenting research to the point that the researcher had to come out and say something about it. All our methane tracking is at least 25% underreported, easily. That's just what we know about.
No mention of the Man Made Methane Gas release millions of Tonnes …………. North Stream 2 ! How convenient ! None of the Great Environmentalist said a word 🤫 shhhh . Truly Amazing !
You may notice that all the CO2 fear and the big push for zero emissions is coming from Europe. Europe is energy poor and has had Russia-phobia for over a century now. Both these things are related because Russia is both energy rich and a superpower. The big climate con-job is all about ending Europe's "energy poor" status and it's Russia-phobia by making fossil fuels illegal - which is hoped will bankrupt Russia by eliminating all its customers. They also want everybody to pay billions into a climate fund owned by Europe. So, there is greed, but not where you think.
I would say it's adversarial nation states. The international community was poised to handle these challenges, but then Russia invaded Ukraine and China started posturing to invade Taiwan. Now Iran is bolstering proxies to begin conflict with Israel and to add insult to injury Russia gave nuclear weapon technology to North Korea. And they are all pressing at the same time. So instead of worrying about climate change we are worried about nuclear conflict and the sovereignty of nations. It's sad. 2024 we shouldn't have to worry about little conquerors rising in the world yet here we are again.
100%. Fast food companies keep pushing their products on us and the result is not only is it killing our planet but also making us sick. It’s great for their bottom line and the pharmaceutical industry as well.
I live in a state doing massive LNG extraction, with resulting massive CO2 (with mythical CCS con job) & massive methane emissions as by-products With no slowing of exploration & granting of leases At the same time, we are all busy sorting our rubbish, returning our cans for deposits & installing solar at a rate of knots. I am very well aware that this ‘window dressing’ & performative greenwashing is pitifully ineffective - any savings are so far below these emissions it’s a joke $$$$$ is all - we are too stupid to deserve to survive
@@sharonyoxall7553 Since we all have been living on a planet that had had major methane and carbon cycles since life began to flourish , effecting massive weather changes that have wiped entire species out, and since our industrialization is also accelerating the climate change that is already going to happen..., we should all focus on how we will live through the cycle and teach the generations that will absolutely live with....and try and live through...massive climate change. one look at a million year old ice core fact record and the illustrations that they offer, you will understand that no cow kiling, automobile dumping, deindustrialization process will keep a cycle ,and the cycles that result from it , from happening again. Climate change has been on the earth way before we climbed out of the last effect. 5 mass extintiction level events and we're still not talking about how to prepare. And no not all of us are doing nothing.... you are here... it's a start
@@sharonyoxall7553 not all is lost, co2 happens. I understand that better proceses need to happen, and while i applaud you with your efforts to recycle, its a drop in the bucket (pun intended..:-)) however combined efforts of money grubbing illiterates can and are goung to be dealt with as long as we can become a larger voice. the earth has natural processes in play for some of the creation of naturalf c02 and methane, they are not enough to keep up with the rampant stupidity.... however there are solutions, we just need more action from people....we are a large group....us people and some of us are working towards cleaning up the messes of the masses one mess at a time.... do the research, become a part of the solution. We all know the problems and they should be in our face like they are yours so that more awareness and an urgency is MORE pronouced. I applaud your time for pointing out that this crap is very real... keep doing it.... and remember , all is not completely lost....The most effective way to "consume" CO2 on a large scale is through planting trees and other vegetation, as they naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, storing it in their biomass; this process is often referred to as carbon sequestration, and is considered the most efficient method for large-scale CO2 removal. Key points about plant-based CO2 consumption: Natural process: Plants naturally absorb CO2 as part of their growth cycle. Scalable: By planting trees and restoring forests, large amounts of CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere. Carbon storage: The carbon captured by plants is stored in their wood and soil, acting as a long-term carbon sink. Other methods of CO2 consumption, though less widely implemented at scale, include: Carbon capture and storage (CCS): Technologies that capture CO2 directly from industrial emissions and store it underground in geological formations. Microalgae cultivation: Growing microalgae in controlled environments to absorb CO2 and produce biofuel. Direct air capture (DAC): Emerging technology that removes CO2 directly from the ambient air using chemical processes. Look up more ....there are....motivate
I think more likely we have been caught by a form or artificial intelligence called neo-liberalism that no-one can escape from, regardless of your position in it.
Our Canadian government gives billions in subsidies, interest-free loans and funding to big-oil through the Export Development Corporation. That totals to about $17 billion in the last 2 or three years.
How many billions on the planet don’t have enough energy to turn on a 100wat bulb? U want to have billions continue to watch their kids die cause in 50 years something could happen. PS we split the atom this time last century and we are being vested by CH4 and CO2? Not enough people had decent science teachers or did their home work.
There are a lot of instances in our economies like that. Take beef for example, or dairy. Either of those two receive billions in subsidies to keep prices low. What does this wind up causing? More beef and dairy consumption, which drives up emissions tied to those goods. We're subsidizing environmental harm. There is also a ton of other harm tied to those industries, like predator eradication, loss of native habitat/animals, a bunch of other things. It's basically a short term loan on our long term survivability. We pay $3/gallon now for milk but it really costs us $10/gal in terms of harm/what we'll pay later(basically what a carbon tax tries to fix). That $7/gal is offset by 1) not caring about the harm and 2) subsidization to keep costs low. That's, unfortunately, why going vegan is the clearest and most logical thing for people to do. It eliminates a ton of unnecessary environmental harm. You entirely remove yourself from nearly 20% of our collective emissions/harm. You can't do that with a lot of other aspects of our lives. You can't stop using electricity or transportation but you can reduce the impact of your diet.
What's just as bad, Canada's GHGSat has been measuring methane emissions for about 6 years now and has about 6 satellites up monitoring methane emissions all around the globe. Big natural gas producing provinces like Alberta and BC should be using the services of GHGSat (I'm not a shareholder so have no stake in the game other than my kids future) to measure and publish the results of the emissions coming from Canadian sources, in particular by the oil and gas and pipeline industries. Instead, they keep the public in the dark as to what GHGSat is finding, which is very troubling emissions - all around the world. GHGSat makes most of its money selling emissions data to oil and gas companies, who have an obvious interest in keeping their emissions low key. This year GHGSat launched their newest satellite that an also measure CO2 emission, at point source just like they do for methane, which their most recent satellites can identify down a site that is the size of a single building or pump-jack site and pumping station.
I am now retired but worked as a field researcher for universities and for the Fed Gov on greenhouse gas budgets since the mid 80's. Quantifying the methane budget is a bit more tricky than co2 as it's heavily dependent on ground hydrology -bacteria may generate methane in wetter conditions or feed upon it in dryer condtions. That's one of several complications. Nearer and in the Arctic, ice in permafrost may cap methane rich zones as it has for millenia and predicting that thaw is very difficult- there is literally a degree difference whether that cap exists or not. On both land and sea, data gathering is logisitically a tall challenge so data is sparse and the heterogenity of deposits is very variable. Many thanks for again putting together a great and highly topically presentation on a pressing enviromental issue. Dean
@@laurencetayloruk the only blindly obvious catastrophe is the eventual collapse of civilisation devolving into a state of constant war and starvation for all but the anointed elites who have chosen themselves to rule over the poor ignorant masses who feel for the scam.
It might be more obvious if there wasn't so much control, restriction, greed, and poorly thought out schemes to rid ourselves of valuable carbon fuels. Much of the science is not settled, and opponents voices are silenced through coercion and shunning from careers, publication, advancement, etc. This is not how science is supposed to happen, so to myself a scientist, none of this appears as science that is anywhere near blindingly obvious. Rather it looks rather cynically manipulative by media manipulators and political ideology.
There’s a new source in town, and so far I’ve found no one who mentioned anything about it. That source is SpaceX, specifically its Starship/Superheavy rocket powered by O2 & CH4. I’m not good at quoting numbers, but from what’s been posted, some 7 tons of CH4 is dumped into the atmosphere every time SH is either tested or flown. A smaller amount is also released during Starship testing. And in the very near future, Starship launches will be increasing significantly - it’s the vehicle that will launch its newer, heavier internet satellites. It’s also the ship destined to head to the moon (?) and mars. And with each of those missions, Starship will be visited by 8-10 tanker version ships (the actual number required yet tbd). Somewhere along the line it would be nice if someone in the know would do the calculations for how much raw methane SpaceX will be dumping into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. I would not be at all surprised to hear that SpaceX will be the single biggest source of methane releases on the planet. Oh, and during flight of Starship - the orbital component - it will dump over a thousand tons of water vapor into the stratosphere. I do hope someone out there can do the requisite calculations. Good presentation, btw.
When I looked into meat consumption, most of the increase in beef, pork and lamb seemed to be coming from developing countries. The new middle class in Asia use to view meat as a luxury and can now afford it. Beef consumed per capita while chicken consumption had increased in developed countries. It would be interesting to see if that is still the case.
Thank you so much for mentioning plant-based eating. I wholeheartedly believe that it is the most important change we can make when it comes to fighting climate change. Eating plant-based helps with greenhouse gas emissions, pollution of groundwater and surface water, deforestation, public health and the economy of countries with public healthcare. And you can get all the nutrients you need to be happy and healthy, so you are not throwing your health away for the sake of the climate.
Great report just terrifying that we may be going into a new era of self regulation of industry by industry I.e themselves. Of course we will be told that this is efficiency.
Another way to look at it is the pre-existing greenhouse gas concentrations are why the Earth's climate (15°C average surface temperature) is not like the Moon's (-20 °C or much lower, depending on how you measure it).
@@skierpage Malcom’s claim is plainly false since CO2 levels were dramatically higher during earth’s ice ball era than even today. There is lots wrong with the present CO2 narrative.
@@my-rocket Was curious about your cryptic-to-me remark and asked the all-knowing internet: "The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can be considered "terrifying" because it demonstrates how dramatically the amount of radiated energy from a blackbody increases with even small changes in temperature, due to the "fourth power" relationship, meaning a small temperature increase can lead to a massive jump in radiated energy; essentially, the hotter something gets, the exponentially faster it radiates heat, which can have significant implications in extreme scenarios like stellar physics or nuclear reactions."
They've also slammed it down the consumers throat that LNG is "Green" which is a wild thing to think about. LNG is not green in anyway, it's just less harmful than diesel/petrol.
I may have said this before ... This channel, and information like this, *MUST* be made available to school children* near the end of their school education, where nuance matters! Accurate, science based, informed, reasonable, no bias, backed up by good, peer reviewed sources. Perhaps I'm an "educationalist" - my invented word? - and those that receive poor education for whatever reason**, may leave school early, are educated under a possibly biased system (like a religious system), understand the world less well than is good for them, and local or global society. . . . *(5th or L6th, U6th in my day; (year 11 or 12 - never have understood that system, so I might be wrong!) **poor investment, poor country, religious bias*** ***Fundamentalist Christians and Muslim groups seem most culpable; but no doubt any religion is biased.
10:45 There are no actual global observational data on changes to permafrost. The Li et al 2022 paper 'Changes in permafrost extent and active layer thickness in the Northern Hemisphere from 1969 to 2018' states "The temporal change characteristics of the permafrost extent and ALT [active layer thickness] for the NH [Northern Hemisphere] have not been studied." These things have only been poorly estimated or modelled. The aforementioned paper modelled permafrost extent decreased from 23.25 × 10⁶km2 (average from 1969 to 1973) to 21.64 × 10⁶km2 (average from 2014 to 2018), with a linear rate of −0.023 × 10⁶ km2/a. That's an annual change of 0.099 of a percent. That's negligible and could just as easily be increasing due to the uncertainty in the modelling. Out of global estimated emissions of methane of around 600 Tg CH4 per year, the best estimate of emissions from pan-Arctic permafrost is 1 Tg CH4 per year (Elder et al, 2021), so that's less than 0.17%. It's almost nothing.
It was great to see a scientific overview of the 'Permafrost' situation, it made interesting reading, and thanks for the time/trouble taken. One rather disturbing factor is the slow rise in temperature of the existing permafrost, so much of it is nearing its 'melting state'. One big problem is when the permafrost thaws, and to the high bacterial activity creating heat, perhaps as high as 20°C to 70°C, this, create a chain reaction rapidly warming up adjacent material. I think that the methane emission figures during the next four years or so will be alarmingly high, both from natural and man made sources. As the situation looks at this moment in time, it will become yet another irreversible tripping point. It has been estimated that the permafrost soils from just the Northern regions could generate as much one gigaton of methane by 2100. Half that would be, I guess, catastrophic!
Just want to say Thank you for your videos, as they give good insight in the science behind the talking points. Eventhough this video also didn't make me jump with joy ofcourse. Over the last decade I have come to see more and more how it is entirely possible that there have been many great, technologically advanced civilisations before us. Just like us they stopped chiselling our history and advancements in stone so when they eventually destroyed themselves by a descent in stupity and willfull ignorance, not a trace of them (us) ever existing was left.
3:50 Methane isn't actually much better at stopping infared light, its just that the methane blocks wavelengths of light that carbon dioxide let's through. The combined effect is much greater than either single gas. Its kind of like a stack of sieves with slightly different sized holes; You capture more material than a single sieve.
Add to that the positive feedback loop(s) of one pre-heating the other and vice versa. This is not to be confused with the other positive feedback of a rise in temperature leading to more methane being released.
In a practical sense, that a bit misleading since we are concerned with the additive effect of increasing concentrations of these gases given the current atmospheric composition. For example, given an atmosphere where CO2 is 400ppm and CH4 is 1.4ppm, the effect of adding 1ppm of CH4 would be greater that adding 50ppm of CO2 (in terms of radiative forcing). [this is my quick radiative forcing calc, so check this for yourself to verify it]
@@BurnettMary yes that is the right idea but if it were the other way around and the atmosphere had mostly methane the warming effect of adding a little CO2 would be more than the effect of adding more methane.
Yes, methane does absorb (and emit) at wavelengths that CO2 does, but water vapor, at at least 600 times the concentration of methane does. Methane does so near to nothing that all sensible people ignore it.
@@AuJohnM'sensible' people.....by which you mean oil companies, climate science deniers and irresponsible governments and not climate scientists. That said, 'sensible' people are ignoring the potential problems of methane likely to be released by the melting of the permafrost in arctic regions and seabed.
New subscriber. Nothing is more compelling than reality, and science allows us to understand what is real so that we can save ourselves. Thank you for your content.
Thank you for your work! It is so very needed in "modern times". Your title ist a little misleading. WE don't have lost control or whatever. We lost attention and mindfulness to the problems and the nature around us. I am scared of people voting people which do want to dismantle all wind turbines and restart the gas pipelines to Ruzzia. Unbelievable - BUT true!!! EVERY day these things you mention should be shown in the first 10 minutes in all TV shows before starting the show. "the party is over" as someone of the Club Of Rome stated years ago! Thank you. Martin from Germany
Another reason NOT to use hydrogen in transportation or otherwise if it can be avoided. Hydrogen leaks easily and can lead to slower degradation of methane. This occurs because hydrogen easily combines with certain molecules in the lower atmosphere before they can make their way to the upper atmosphere where they would combine with and thus degrade methane's warming capabilities. The more hydrogen escaping into our atmosphere, the less methane degradation. Instead of degrading in 12 years it may be much longer.
Yup. And because dirty hydrogen from leaky natural gas is 95+% of the hydrogen supply, and because it takes so much more renewable energy to make green H2, hydrogen in transportation may only be lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than diesel if the H2 is 90% from green H2 powered 100% by renewables. Spoiler: it isn't. Next time you read about some dopey hydrogen bus or truck trial, ask what % of its H2 supply _currently_ comes from 100% renewably powered green H2.
IF you think Methane emissions are bad, wait until you find out about Nitrous Oxide emissions: "Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years."
"Livestock' Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". FAO. Rome. 2006 "Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011
That number seems really high. I'm guessing they're including the nitrous oxide from producing livestock feed? Also, those seem like rather old references?
A more recent 2024 epa estimate, did not find exact answer in very brief googling. From the other hits on google, it would appear to be more like 32% livestock, not 65%. Agriculture is rated at 60%. www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#:~:text=The%20application%20of%20nitrogen%20fertilizers%20accounts%20for%20the%20majority%20of%20N2O%20emissions%20in%20the%20United%20States. "The application of nitrogen fertilizers accounts for the majority of N2O emissions in the United States. "
Just like Ch4 N2o emissions are incapable of causing much warming, the physics are well understood. Just like Ch4 N2o has a VERY narrow band of long wave Infrared frequencies it can absorb, and its frequency bands are overlapped with some other more numerous greenhouse gases like H2o. These bands are already mostly saturated meaning that it does not matter how much N2o is outgassed into the atmosphere the vast majority of those outgoing long wave Infrared frequencies CANNOT be absorbed and reradiated by N2o. They just go out to space.
@@peterjones4180 Complete BS. Let me guess, you're an animal exploiter??? FACTS..... "N2O is much less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide or methane (the two primary human-made greenhouse gases), but its global warming potential is nearly 300 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. N2O is also a strong ozone-depleting substance." research.noaa.gov/nitrous-oxide-emissions-grew-40-percent-from-1980-to-2020-accelerating-climate-change/
As it was at least 2 Deg C warmer than now only around a thousand years ago i fail to see the problem. Further it was significantly warmer, 2000, 3000 and 6000-8000 years ago. The 1.5 Deg figure was simply propaganda spread by the political wing of the IPCC and reluctantly supplied by a professor at the Potsdam institute who as he said simply plucked a figure out of the air to please them. He described 1.5 Deg C as scientifically meaningless. How is it that you did not know that.
You do such a great job! i work with a non-profit that organizes folks over age 60 to get active on climate and energy issues. Your videos are top notch and I recommend to anyone who wants to learn. Thank you.
Well Nancy its pretty clear YOU dont understand much about the physics involved in this subject. This channel is PURE propaganda, marked frequently by what they deliberately leave out of their presentations in order to deceive their viewers.
Feed the cattle grass instead of corn. Methane problem solved, and also no longer a need to give them any antibiotics. Corn is the problem, well, corn and greed.
That, plus the factor a meat and dairy based diet plays into the mass level extinction event we're in, made my friends, famlily and me vegans, years ago.
There are so many reasons to eat less meat. Besides the environmental benefits, it's healthier, preserves wilderness, and fewer creatures suffer and die.
@@skierpage How does it preserve wilderness? So much more land will need to be cleared to produce the crops that are supposed to replace meat. Cattle are a useful part of land management and non-vegetarian diet is healthier than vegetarian. Besides, it will make no difference to alleged AGW to eliminate meat eating.
Vegans are like musicians that went to Berklee: you don't have to ask, they'll tell you. I just wonder which one vegan musicians from Berklee lead with.
@@joemccarthy7120 animals require about 10x the land to be fed to produce the same amount of human food. It's very inefficient. So we could end up with huge amounts of wilderness if we weren't using it to grow crops to turn into meat.
How do I put this. We live in a capitalistic society animal farming is going to go the way of the wind why laboratory grown meat will end up being cheaper. Cheaper to produce cheaper to transport cheaper. More profit. And I still get my barbecued steak😅
Ahh … you skipped straight to un-burned methane - leakage. Correct in the science, but it needs context of why gas extraction generates leakage. Overall, excellent video. ** edit: US avoided developing cheap RE by investing in fracked gas. EU used Russian gas. Longer term, both a mistake.
I’m 75 years old. Greenhouse gases have risen dramatically during my lifetime. As the permafrost thawed out, and continues to thaw out, all around the world, tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases are released and this can’t be stopped. Our activities created the thaw, and now there is nothing that can be done. It is beyond our control. So, “have a think!”
Too late to stop the permafrost from melting and releasing gigatons of CO2, CH4, & NO. We are already in full-on feedback loop mode. In addition we've already baked in 2.5°C to 3.0°C with our current 525ppm CO2-eq. It will take every bit of human effort ingenuity & sacrifice to keep us below 4°C by the end of century.
Those are just predictions, there’s not even significant confidence in the 1.3 degrees warming since the industrial start. It could be less that 1 degree
Not to be a doomer, but since the 2010s, the most significant increase has been from natural sources, mostly tropical wetlands. This may mean that we have crossed a tipping point.
“Research from 2020 has demonstrated that the spike in atmospheric methane levels in recent decades is coming from natural gas extraction (as opposed to farming and livestock, or natural sources such as peat bogs and melting permafrost). Moreover, the rise in methane is responsible for as much as 25 percent of the warming during this period.” - Michael Mann
Makes me wonder why all western countries had wetland renewals as part of their plan over the last 20 years, they knew warming emissions from wetlands would double, why increase the number of them, overall was the view or habitat worth it. But yeah cheap natural gas is awash around the world, Qatar turn it into jet fuel and give it to the airline free, Australia now the equal largest exporter since 2010 and places like Uk where home heating is more emissions than all electricity, both done with gas and all gas well's leak, be really hard to imagine the simplest explanation isn't the main reason, especially since fracking etc kicked off then.
I busted out laughing when you started off the video '... if we are going to stay below 2 degrees..." It is the first time I have not heard or referred to 1.5. Thanks for being honest.
He's actually comparing CO2, without which there would be no life on Earth (flora or fauna), with metabolic poison like Cyanide. That's the point at which I left the audience.
Thanks for reporting on methane. A couple points you made, however, need a little clarification. The first is that, the reason why methane's ability to act as a greenhouse gas goes from approximately 80 to approximately 20 times CO2's ability is not because it somehow changes in its molecular properties, its because the people who calculated this assume the methane molecules will be oxidized to CO2 by UV light and oxygen over time. In effect, they assume there will be less methane over time. This way of reporting methane's greenhouse gas properties, is deceptive, as you implied. I find it particularly deceptive because, since the methane levels in the atmosphere are increasing, the immediate greenhouse gas effect, which is, I believe found to be around 120 times that of CO2, Is the effect we feel. The second thing I want to clarify is to do with methane from ruminants. It is true, that feed lot cattle who are fed a grain heavy diet produce lots of methane in their many stomachs. However, cows which are grass fed produce much less methane, aside from growing healthier, tastier meat. Cows which are managed in ways which mimic nature, such as mob grazing, can rebuild soil. Soil has more than 5 times more carbon than the vegetation growing on it. Rebuilding soil can sequester 10 tons of CO2 per acre per year. Deserts can be turned into carbon sucking savannahs in a dozen years or so when livestock is managed this way. Its been done in many places already. So, imo, we need to change how livestock is managed, not whether we should have livestock.
Pity you seem to have no understanding of how Ch4 operates as a greenhouse gas. If you understood the physics you would understand that no matter how much CH4 goes into the atmosphere it is incapable of causing dangerous warming. The more in the atmosphere the larger the drop in its ability to add additional warming.
@@tradeprosper5002 The US military and military-industrial complex are among the globe's biggest GHG emitters so the walk-and-chew-gum approach is absolutely correct. Anti-imperialism and climate justice are not only related struggles but inseparably bound up with each other. Anyone wondering why Greta Thunberg seems to have pivoted to marching in support of the Palestine liberation movement, this is why.
@@skierpage Yes it is. Very ironically it's your (and billions of others') willful ignorance of the situation which isn't helpful. Well actually it is helpful for the powers who want to keep using 20,000,000,000 litres of oil per year for their completely pointless endeavors. The more people that point this out the better. Don't forget they've already destroyed the lives of about 800,000 children this year alone. By destroyed I mean no longer breathing or mutilated.
Most rich people stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then most poor people stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich but impressing them. People prefer to spend money on liabilities, Rather than investing in assets and be very profitable
Now, I Just realized that the secret to making a million is saving for better trades. I always tell myself you don't need that new Maserati or that vacation just yet. That mindset helped me make more money trading. For example last year I Traded with 10k in Crypto and made about $146k, but guess what? I put it all back and traded again and now I am rounding up close to a million
I agree with efficiency, But lately it looks like pockets of governments are trying to get too much control over the Worlds Food. Efficiency and innovation is good. Lack of food, power, & heating is not. "Banning" farmers is a deadly idea.
I remember back in uni doing a project on the methane clathrates, and learning the 50GT number and realizing for the first time we were all effectively standing on a huge bomb, and constantly trying to set it off.
This is actually a very valid point. Population growth is to a great extend ignored in the climate debat. But if we really want to avoid serious climate change, we need to reduce population growth and applude population decline.
@@onetwothreeabc there are plenty of countries with active policies to encourage fertility rates and population growth. You can start with stopping that and then move on to policies that actually support a decline. Nothing difficult or unethical about that. Or we can just continue off the cliff...
You did not mention fracking and the emission through the ground of not just methane but ethane, even more blanketing than methane and released in large quantities in the process. In fact methane from fracking has been estimated at 8% of global release. The problem is wider than you speculate.
925 million humans (1 in 9) suffer from hunger, yet 80 billion unnaturally bred animals on farms are given enough human edible food that could support 4 billion humans directly. -University of Minnesota 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
What people keep missing is that an extremely tiny percentage of a huge number still makes for a huge number; and a large percentage of a very tiny number, still makes for a tiny number! I had an argument with one of my friends involving the small percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. He said "nothing that tiny can have such an affect on our climate." So I asked him since it was that tiny, if he'd be willing to take on that tiny percentage of our national debt and he said "sure, no problem!" and gave me this smile kind of saying "See, what's the fuss!" Thus, together we looked up the number of our national debt and together we did the math. Needless to say he turned somewhat pale when it started to dawn on him ...
At one point there were 50-100 million Buffalo roaming the USA, naturally without human help. They weren't raising methane levels back then. Methane only survives about 25 years in the atmosphere, which is a very short-lived molecule.
So what? The point is natural sources and sinks of methane, just like carbon, were nicely balanced until we showed up and leaked millions of tons of methane AND intensively raise a billion animals for livestock, causing the increased methane concentration.
@@theoldbuzzard5239 yes, buffalo eat grass and many cows eat things like silage and, overall, produce more emissions than buffalo or grass fed cows do as grassland stores carbon
"At one point there were 50-100 million Buffalo roaming the USA, naturally without human help." - More like 30-60 million, but that was back in the 1500s, when the human population of the entire planet was less than half a billion, and very few Texans had giant pickup trucks.
But Carbon dioxide is not only toxic, it is very toxic. The work place limit is just 0.5%. 1% will have noticeable physiological effects, 4-5% will cause significant respiratory distress and unconsciousness within minutes, 8-10% Can cause unconsciousness within seconds and death after a single breath or very short exposure. This is due to rapid disruption of normal respiratory function, oxygen displacement, and severe acidosis.
Utter rubbish, Co2 IS NOT TOXIC ! It simply displaces Oxygen. 5000 ppm is no problem at all. How about you talk in ppm eh. Current atmospheric concentration is around .04 %
😮I am impressed. There are millions of seeps. Persia, Iran today, worshiped the fire temples, where gas seeps are great enough to not be blown out by a breeze. The continental shelf is covered with Fire ice nodules. Methane compressed by water pressure into a solid.
GWP(0) of CH4 is "at least" 120 times that of CO2. As long as the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is growing with no end in sight we should not use GWP(20) or GWP(100) of CH4. That is simply dishonest.
Great content as usual. Do SpaceX Starships emit methane at launch? And how much would be bad for us? All animals release methane domesticated or wild - yet that data is not shown because its insignificant?
The topic of the launch of space craft is something of a taboo. Kind of like the results of any activity preclude the consideration of shared costs as long as I want it. People will rationalize this kind of pursuit regardless of the impacts which include punching holes in the ozone layer, massive use of fuel, extremely high dollar cost (which is thought to be a great thing by those who like GNP) and of course the placing of our dreams away from the simple ways of the rest of life on the planet on which we depend. Mind on the stars instead of here and now.
At first I wanted to write your comment off as naive and "it could never be relevant next to airline emission". But from what I found it could soon be very relevant, with the spaceflight sector having a boom and emissions high up in the sky. It seems to be a great question for a deep dive video!
Denialists simultaneously say that the low ppm of carbon dioxide won't do anything, while also suggesting that higher carbon dioxide means better agriculture production.
@@kmoses582 Do you not realise that a change in concentration changes the physiology of the plant? I mean... YOU could breath a high oxygen atmosphere... would it be "good" for you? Or would it alter the balance of your Pulmonary system?
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
Those who were not listening probably understood more about the physics of Ch4 than his dad. Ch4 is INCAPABLE of causing dangerous global warming. Its long wave Infrared absorption band frequencies are VERY narrow and mostly overlapped by H2o. It cannot absorb and re radiate much long wave infrared radiation at all.
It doesn't look like it (I don't know Mr. Think's real name), but ClimateNews on bsky reliably features Just Have a Think videos. I wish the excellent scientists on Climate Twitter, uh Xitter[1], would wholescale adopt Bluesky. [1] pronounced as in Xi Jinping.
We've all heard about CO2 in our atmosphere causing warming by capturing infra red radiation and reflecting it back to the Earth from a height of around 5 Km. The Greenhouse Effect The four main gases in the Earth's atmosphere are: Nitrogen: The most abundant gas in the atmosphere, making up 78% of it. Oxygen: Makes up 21% of the atmosphere. Argon: Makes up 0.93% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2): Makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. The last one, CO2, being a very small amount by comparison to the other three, is, nevertheless, HEAVIER THAN ALL OF THEM. That being the case one might expect, relatively scarce as it is, the bulk of it to be at ground level. As evidenced by the Earths flourishing green and pleasant lands. In which case I'm waiting for someone to explain why there is allegedly so much of CO2 hanging around 5 km above the ground to be able to reflect so much infra red as to warrant the catastrophic consequences predicted by the climate alarmists.
don't be afraid of doomerism, not so much as a we're doomed no matter what we do but know that as "law abiding citizens" we're rendered and coerced to be completely helpless against the ecocidal damage caused by a few thousand billionaires and their strong ties in law making.
Well, apparently few intelligent species in the galaxy survive the ‘clever and consumption’ stage of development. Must be nice to live with the few who made it to ‘wise’.
Enrico Fermi: in the summer of 1950, Fermi was engaged in casual conversation about contemporary UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski while the group was walking to lunch. The conversation moved on to other topics, until Fermi later blurted out during lunch, "But where is everybody?" (Wikipedia.) A good reply would have been : The distance Earth's first radio transmissions have traveled is a very tiny fraction of the Milky Way's diameter, roughly 0.0009 or about 0.09%. Important Note: This calculation assumes the radio waves haven't been significantly absorbed or scattered by interstellar matter. In reality, the strength of these early signals would decrease greatly over such a distance. Perhaps other extra terrestrial beings capable of conceptual thought, science etc. cannot ever persuade the other beings capable of conceptual thought, science etc. that predictive behaviour can help beings survive longer as a whole, no matter how much money they have? Even the trillionaires.
If you want to have a think using some common sense there is only one way to prevent climate change. If the world ended cost of living today and made sure everyone had a home with solar power and communities growing all the food they need global emissions could collapse over 90% in 1 year. For every percentage you collapse the economy a percentage of world emissions is reduced. Less traffic to and from work. Less exporting and importing. Non essential jobs would completely be gone without cost of living. Capitalism would be dead and there would be no competition anymore. The threats of war would be over because lets be real capitalism and ideology creates war and fear. With a peaceful utopia like living environment nature would begin to restore itself and society would focus more on educations and the values of life. Understanding the perception of reality and removing the ideological manipulation the human race has corrupted itself with would disappear. The current state of affairs in this civilization around the world cannot be allowed anymore. We must fix the mistakes of our past and present to create a sustainable future or all will be lost forever.
THIS! (And get rid of nations, countries, and religions. We all live on the same world and, as far as we know, there's only 1 planet Earth in the universe.)
"If the world ended cost of living today and made sure everyone had a home with solar power and communities growing all the food they need global emissions could collapse over 90% in 1 year." - It wouldn't happen, though, because people resist change. Locally grown food means giving up any number of items we've got used to over the last 100-200 years. For the UK, for example: No bananas or pineapples ever. No tomatos all winter. Sprouts for an entire 2-3 month period from November onwards. It'd be a methane catastrophe! "For every percentage you collapse the economy a percentage of world emissions is reduced" - Except the human population continues to grow hugely; economic growth will follow just as night follows day. It is inevitable, as everyone is a consumer, whether we like it or not. We, as a population, can certainly make some changes which, long term, will have a huge beneficial impact on our environment - but every billion additional mouths to feed will undo all that good work. We need to find a humane way to stabilise, and ideally reduce, the sheer number of humans on the planet.
We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption. JAMES HANSEN, director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, December 2005
Great segment. Diverting organic waste away from landfills to composting is another important initiative that governments can undertake which benefits not only methane reductions but soil fertility
Worth noting that methane from grazing ruminants is mostly a soil management /degradation problem and regenerative farming can be methane neutral or close to. Further intensive cropping being fed to animals in factory farms is a methane emitting disaster. Finally the number of ruminants kept for livestock isn't much greater the number that would have been naturally grazing on the world's grasslands before human industrialisation. It's a lot of HOW we are doing it.
Search & Read: DOI 10.1080/23311843.2017.1385693 and DOI 10.1088/2976-601X/ad64d7 1 adult, grass-fed, UK cow, in 1 year, emits 6140kg CO2 1 adult, grass-fed, UK cow, in 1 year emits 218kg CH4 1 adult, UK farmed cow, in 1 year emits [around] 1.4kg N2O That's 32 tonnes of CO2e (GWP10) per cow, per year A mature stand of deciduous UK tree sequesters ~20 tonnes of CO2 per year, per hectare A best-in-class regeneratively-farmed hectare of soil can sequester ~2 tonne of CO2, per year Put another way, after 12 Years, the GHG radiative forcing from one UK Adult cow's emissions total a cumulative 2,000,000kWh of global heating ... just from breathing, eating & excreting And finally: each adult UK cow alive through 2024 year guarantees 50,000 cubic meters of Polar Ice Melt by 2100 Forget the emotions and the reasons for meat and dairy Just look at the numbers and understand what they actually mean. Then adjust your lifestyle
Please stop distracting from the message we need to reduce our meat consumption. Regeneratively grazed ruminants are still ruminants emitting methane. Sure, they might be suitable on some grasslands, but if we rewild and restore forest on grasslands instead of regeneratively graze cows on them, we reduce methane emissions while having those soils sequester carbon.
7:30 the EU should put a hefty tax on beef and lamb, maybe on dairy products made from cows and sheep milk too, regardless of their origin (imports from outside the EU) to make everyone aware how dangerous and costly methane emissions are. the tax should be significant enough to make consumers think twice. I bet it won't take long before we see promising results. 🙂
@@JamieTwells afraid not. that wouldn't cut it. if the EU were to cut CAP subsidies for their dairy and cattle farmers then these farmers would be forced to sell their products for a higher price. it wouldn't affect the Argentinian cattle baron selling their beef, it wouldn't affect the Australian/NZ sheep farmer selling their lamb meat and it would make dairy products from outside the EU flooding in. US farmers would sell far more of their stuff to EU consumers. no, everything emitting methane in the production process needs to be taxed regardless of its place of origin: the EU, the US, China etc
Maybe if he stopped spreading Vegan misinformation he'd do better. Cows don't magically make carbon. The carbon they burp comes from the food they eat. The food got that carbon from the atmosphere. It's called the biogenic carbon cycle. The 'problem' on this planet is not the animals - it is the EXTRA fossil carbon we humans dig up and burn. Blaming animals is just the Vegan religion's misinformation... hanging on the coat tails of the climate change movement for their own (very misinformed) reasons.
The solution is: end the Money is Speech judicial doctrine and return the corporation to what it legally is, a licensed entity. Licensed as in, chartered by the public to work in the public interest. We’ll be able to have the decisions about public policy made by the public process, which we are by law in a democracy supposed to have now. As it is, corporations have control over the U.S. Congress and the governments of many nations, and legislating is done to preserve the stock value of the corporation, not the lives and health of the people.
I watched a doc a few years ago that spoke about the methane being released from all along the northern coastline of Russia! Shocking! I'd love to see you focus on this aspect of the methane conversation!
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
My day job is working as a biochar developer for a rewilding initiative in Sussex England. I’m experimenting with developing low emission systems for turning (otherwise left to rot) byproduct biomass into biochar carbon. Then adding it into and onto the soil inoculated with mycorrhizal sporulates to attempt an accelerated rewilding of previously impoverished post industrial land. Experimental tests are so far encouraging enough to suggest a far faster increase in soil biomass carbon sequestration over and above the biochar carbon being added. If this could be implemented broadly on small scale then it would become possible to draw down millions of tonnes of carbon from the carbon cycle and lock it back into the soil and out of the atmosphere. At the same time as dramatically improving soil fertility, negating the need for petrochemical fertilisers and helping to bring back habitat and biodiversity. I’m working hard at it to see if it will help.
Thinking ‘terra preta’ wise, we may have lost connection to nature, to spirit and to ancient technologies however it is all possible to regain if we can be brave and face uncomfortable truths. Changing our habits and daring to take risks, be bold and strive to want less material possessions. Wildroots Wood.
Nice flex. You're walking the walk.
Happy to be working, eating. and living in a safe dwelling. The water is potable, the air is excellent. I'm glad you have a project. You can't save the earth. But you can do your thing
while watching the Western Industrial civilization crumble. Mutual aid coming your way.
Have fun rearranging the deck chairs. What is the orchestra playing?
@@Garrison169 Ummm, he's actually working towards good things. What's with the snark?
Fungus is awesome. Have you tried expanding the number/types of fungi you use?
I'm surprised you don't have more subscribers. This is a very important channel.
People do not want to think about giving up a life style that measures their success by how much fossils fuel they can afford to burn. It's very impressive to burn fuel.
It’s because he puts a liberal viewpoint in that one based from actual science.
Facts this shit is important for people to be educated abt
Humans produce methane, that's why I am waiting to have kids. It would be cruel to bring them into a world with so many problems. We should still take care over the ones we already have. Sorry to all parents(You should have prepared better.).😅❤ If kids are annoying, we should try to have less of them, especially in countries where living is difficult because of poverty. You know which part of the world I refer to(It's wrong to call it the third world, but yeah you do bring problems up north.).😅 Sorry.
When I was born in 1947, the world population was about 2.4 billion, today 8.2 billion. We all fart approximately 14 times a day.
I read a piece on demographics some years ago that the population would top out at about at about 9.8 billion ( since revised to 10.4 billion) then over the next 150 years the population would fall to about 3.8 billion putting the world in a better place
I admire, how you always manage to tightrope all these gloomy news in a very entertaining, funny, yet still professional and thought provoking manner! Seems to be a British quality, like shops, who were bombed during air raids in WW2, and put out signs the next day like 'even more open today!". Humour seems to be the best strategy to not succumb to all the bad news surrounding us.
❤❤❤❤
Even more concerned about warmongering politicians who are elitist and bit insane imo
Thank you so much for including fugitive emissions. I've heard that only 5% methane emissions from leaks in the piping system cancels out all of methane's "clean burning" advantages, and that's basically where we are at when it comes to leaks, making natural gas a total clean energy mirage.
When fugitive emissions are taken in to account, it's somehow worse than coal. Unbelievable.
What about the tonnes of methane released when Biden and crew blew up the NORDSTREAM PIPELINE?💥
5% is where we are at if you trust the self reporting of the petro-chemical producers.
@@thomasross4921 Nordstream pipeline
Well, it doesn't help the half of the US is speckled with abandoned and forgotten oil and gas wells leaking unmeasured methane into the atmosphere.
Like love the little mom and pop oil wells, they’re the backbone of the American economy
@@TheMinimumPC I don't know if they're mom-and-pop oil wells, but over the past 100 years, companies have put in wells and then realized it was more expensive to fill them in and cap them properly than to just walk away and drill a new one five mile down the road. Appalachia is full of them.
But we all love to use the methane producing fuel for our creature comforts. What a travesty!
same goes for Alberta, Canada... that place is a catastrophe when it comes to abandoned or orphaned gas wells, they even have a corporate fund that oil & gas corporations are supposed to be paying into, to reclaim well and clean up after extraction, but it isn't paid into well enough, and now taxpayers foot the bill
@@MandosaWright I feel like the "Great Stuff" brand could pull some major PR here by developing a well filler foam
The fact that methane that could be industrially burned is instead left to be a WORSE greenhouse gas, while more is drilled for is beyond upsetting. It will always be more profitable to mine and destroy unregulated resources
overlooking the epic level live stock fart.
Those resources are regulated. But it matters who is in charge of the regulators and elections have consequences.
@@daispy101 to an extent. If all candidates are "pro business" then it's more a matter of how much pollution we get, thus the problem. There might be candidates around the world running on ecologically sustainable measures, but not that I know of in the US. Choices are bad or worse 🙃
Natural Methane hydrate is this issue and no humans are not in control
@@CDWCAULDRON what point are you making?
There may be people smarter than you, Dave, but you're a smarter communicator. And the world needs communicators, especially about climate change!
correct he can explain difficult things in an easy way
No he isn't. He's a propagandist.
@@tarstarkuszelaborate
@@tarstarkusz At least you're immune to something.
@@hungrydna He would tell you himself. Propaganda has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of a claim. A lot of propaganda has absolutely no information at all. Norman Rockwell paintings are a perfect example of that.
One of the places to start is in changing how we deal with organic waste, including human waste. Our current sewage systems have had very positive impacts on human health, but they are responsible for horrendous losses of critical plant nutrients like phosphorus, which have a finite available supply, and additionally they are significant sources of methane emissions. Aerobic composting at high enough temperatures to sterilize the organics, and recycling as plant nutrients, is critical. However, the big problem is illegal dumping of toxic metals like cadmium into our sewage system. Implementing continuous monitoring of sewage flows for metals and toxic substances is needed, and a large scale program to recycle these organics and their critical plant nutrients.
So the problem is what people throw into the sewer is the issue
we have many 🧩 = problem
Who can now, see the all finished puzzle ?
Isn't organic methane carbon neutral?
Interesting comments about sewage treatment. I wonder what you think of emerging MicroPoP technology by Eagleridge Innovations?
@@Gilotopia No, methane isn't carbon neutral. Methane is significantly more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. And it's not even carbon neutral from a chemical perspective because each methane molecule has a carbon atom.
Over 10 years ago I had an "argument" online with a "engineer" who followed the then popular thinking that natural gas was our solution away from burning coal and so a solution for CO2 global warming. My point was other research that clarified that if only 3% of the natural gas pumped from place to place around the US leaked than the emissions of methane would make the use of natural gas more problematic than using coal. Actual figures suggested that the number was closer to a 12% leakage from pipelines. Now on top of this I have seen numbers that suggest we only are able to collect 20 to 30% of the natural gas produced from fracking and there are large areas above natural gas fracking fields satalites have shown with increased natural gas emissions.
Those stories were all over the news. I bet the vast majority still believe it. Come to think of it I do believe coal is worse than natural gas. What a scary thought. It does seem like our fixes keep making more problems than they solve. I have already heard we need to remove wet lands because they produce methane.
We're all run into the "engineers", there's a stratum of retired white men flooding board with their often outdated (but once real) expertise. They largely overlap with the Nuclear fanboys. The reason for their opinions is typically rooted in the right wing propaganda they absorb through Fox and WSJ. And they're sooo much smarter than all those climate dupes...
Damn right! Thank you for the valuable info!
Do note that natural gas is generally considered an unwanted byproduct of the oil industry. They make some money on it, but it's not their cash cow like heavier hydrocarbons. Yes I know there's dedicated gas fields and fracking etc, but monetary value is still low. So low, that your 12% figure whether accurate or not really isn't economical to repair without environmental laws requiring it. (one of the few areas where I can support stronger regulations) So, by far, the biggest emitters of methane by the oil industry is in warm countries without environmental regulations. This is where you're lucky if they even attempt to flare off the methane.
Where I live leaks are treated very seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage is is sub 1% by volume, but I don't have much proof to back that up.
Also remember that all these "green" solutions are not really green. They're less harmful than _____. So LNG is "less harmful" than burning diesel or petrol but it is in no way "green". Calling a LNG garbage truck a "green solution" is laughably incorrect.
This is just greenwashing by the industry to get people on board with another one of their products.
You are very informative and very easily digestible, your demeanour makes your videos real easy to watch!
A mere 17% increase in Methane emissions over the last 30 years is impossibly low, a cover up. This is common sense. The increase in emissions since the 1990's due to expansion of cattle farming, natural gas extraction, processing and delivery, human waste, and landfills would far exceed a 17% increase. Fracking alone is a huge new source of fugitive Methane emissions.
It's based on outdated collection methodology. Over the last year or two, we've been "amazed" to find new sources of methane all over the place, along with the amounts we were already tracking being woefully underreported.
I used to be heavily involved in ranching/cattle and i can tell you right now they're vastly underreporting all their information and there's a legit effort to keep that data from ever being properly tracked/reported. US universities have been caught, looking at you UC davis, working with the cattle industry to fudge numbers. The industry, just a few months ago, got caught grossly misrepresenting research to the point that the researcher had to come out and say something about it.
All our methane tracking is at least 25% underreported, easily. That's just what we know about.
Search tip: Trees reveal climate surprise: Microbes living in bark remove methane from the atmosphere
@@CRneudamn right you are! It’s no coincidence that our local soil carbon sequestration project was conducted on a Murdoch owned cattle property!
No mention of the Man Made Methane Gas release millions of Tonnes …………. North Stream 2 !
How convenient !
None of the Great Environmentalist said a word 🤫 shhhh . Truly Amazing !
fracking is a 10x'r...
It isn't ignorance that prevents humanity from dealing with this imminent head-on disaster .. it's greed.
and over population!!!! the thin biosphere is a co2/methane waste dump!
And morally apathetic Government corrupted by Plutocracy.
You may notice that all the CO2 fear and the big push for zero emissions is coming from Europe. Europe is energy poor and has had Russia-phobia for over a century now. Both these things are related because Russia is both energy rich and a superpower. The big climate con-job is all about ending Europe's "energy poor" status and it's Russia-phobia by making fossil fuels illegal - which is hoped will bankrupt Russia by eliminating all its customers. They also want everybody to pay billions into a climate fund owned by Europe. So, there is greed, but not where you think.
I would say it's adversarial nation states. The international community was poised to handle these challenges, but then Russia invaded Ukraine and China started posturing to invade Taiwan. Now Iran is bolstering proxies to begin conflict with Israel and to add insult to injury Russia gave nuclear weapon technology to North Korea. And they are all pressing at the same time. So instead of worrying about climate change we are worried about nuclear conflict and the sovereignty of nations.
It's sad. 2024 we shouldn't have to worry about little conquerors rising in the world yet here we are again.
100%. Fast food companies keep pushing their products on us and the result is not only is it killing our planet but also making us sick.
It’s great for their bottom line and the pharmaceutical industry as well.
I live in a state doing massive LNG extraction, with resulting massive CO2 (with mythical CCS con job) & massive methane emissions as by-products
With no slowing of exploration & granting of leases
At the same time, we are all busy sorting our rubbish, returning our cans for deposits & installing solar at a rate of knots. I am very well aware that this ‘window dressing’ & performative greenwashing is pitifully ineffective - any savings are so far below these emissions it’s a joke
$$$$$ is all - we are too stupid to deserve to survive
@@sharonyoxall7553 Since we all have been living on a planet that had had major methane and carbon cycles since life began to flourish , effecting massive weather changes that have wiped entire species out, and since our industrialization is also accelerating the climate change that is already going to happen..., we should all focus on how we will live through the cycle and teach the generations that will absolutely live with....and try and live through...massive climate change.
one look at a million year old ice core fact record and the illustrations that they offer, you will understand that no cow kiling, automobile dumping, deindustrialization process will keep a cycle ,and the cycles that result from it , from happening again. Climate change has been on the earth way before we climbed out of the last effect. 5 mass extintiction level events and we're still not talking about how to prepare. And no not all of us are doing nothing.... you are here... it's a start
@@sharonyoxall7553 not all is lost, co2 happens. I understand that better proceses need to happen, and while i applaud you with your efforts to recycle, its a drop in the bucket (pun intended..:-)) however combined efforts of money grubbing illiterates can and are goung to be dealt with as long as we can become a larger voice. the earth has natural processes in play for some of the creation of naturalf c02 and methane, they are not enough to keep up with the rampant stupidity.... however there are solutions, we just need more action from people....we are a large group....us people and some of us are working towards cleaning up the messes of the masses one mess at a time.... do the research, become a part of the solution. We all know the problems and they should be in our face like they are yours so that more awareness and an urgency is MORE pronouced. I applaud your time for pointing out that this crap is very real... keep doing it.... and remember , all is not completely lost....The most effective way to "consume" CO2 on a large scale is through planting trees and other vegetation, as they naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, storing it in their biomass; this process is often referred to as carbon sequestration, and is considered the most efficient method for large-scale CO2 removal.
Key points about plant-based CO2 consumption:
Natural process: Plants naturally absorb CO2 as part of their growth cycle.
Scalable: By planting trees and restoring forests, large amounts of CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere.
Carbon storage: The carbon captured by plants is stored in their wood and soil, acting as a long-term carbon sink.
Other methods of CO2 consumption, though less widely implemented at scale, include:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS):
Technologies that capture CO2 directly from industrial emissions and store it underground in geological formations.
Microalgae cultivation:
Growing microalgae in controlled environments to absorb CO2 and produce biofuel.
Direct air capture (DAC):
Emerging technology that removes CO2 directly from the ambient air using chemical processes.
Look up more ....there are....motivate
I think more likely we have been caught by a form or artificial intelligence called neo-liberalism that no-one can escape from, regardless of your position in it.
This channel should have more subscribers and views, its so important for people to be educated about this stuff and he explains it so well.
Our Canadian government gives billions in subsidies, interest-free loans and funding to big-oil through the Export Development Corporation. That totals to about $17 billion in the last 2 or three years.
How many billions on the planet don’t have enough energy to turn on a 100wat bulb? U want to have billions continue to watch their kids die cause in 50 years something could happen. PS we split the atom this time last century and we are being vested by CH4 and CO2? Not enough people had decent science teachers or did their home work.
not much we can do as mere spectators besides i guess driving a big block v8 and try to have some fun while oil is still a thing right?
There are a lot of instances in our economies like that. Take beef for example, or dairy. Either of those two receive billions in subsidies to keep prices low. What does this wind up causing? More beef and dairy consumption, which drives up emissions tied to those goods. We're subsidizing environmental harm. There is also a ton of other harm tied to those industries, like predator eradication, loss of native habitat/animals, a bunch of other things.
It's basically a short term loan on our long term survivability. We pay $3/gallon now for milk but it really costs us $10/gal in terms of harm/what we'll pay later(basically what a carbon tax tries to fix). That $7/gal is offset by 1) not caring about the harm and 2) subsidization to keep costs low.
That's, unfortunately, why going vegan is the clearest and most logical thing for people to do. It eliminates a ton of unnecessary environmental harm. You entirely remove yourself from nearly 20% of our collective emissions/harm. You can't do that with a lot of other aspects of our lives. You can't stop using electricity or transportation but you can reduce the impact of your diet.
@ I don’t want to consume pesticides and GM plants.
What's just as bad, Canada's GHGSat has been measuring methane emissions for about 6 years now and has about 6 satellites up monitoring methane emissions all around the globe. Big natural gas producing provinces like Alberta and BC should be using the services of GHGSat (I'm not a shareholder so have no stake in the game other than my kids future) to measure and publish the results of the emissions coming from Canadian sources, in particular by the oil and gas and pipeline industries. Instead, they keep the public in the dark as to what GHGSat is finding, which is very troubling emissions - all around the world. GHGSat makes most of its money selling emissions data to oil and gas companies, who have an obvious interest in keeping their emissions low key. This year GHGSat launched their newest satellite that an also measure CO2 emission, at point source just like they do for methane, which their most recent satellites can identify down a site that is the size of a single building or pump-jack site and pumping station.
I am now retired but worked as a field researcher for universities and for the Fed Gov on greenhouse gas budgets since the mid 80's. Quantifying the methane budget is a bit more tricky than co2 as it's heavily dependent on ground hydrology -bacteria may generate methane in wetter conditions or feed upon it in dryer condtions. That's one of several complications. Nearer and in the Arctic, ice in permafrost may cap methane rich zones as it has for millenia and predicting that thaw is very difficult- there is literally a degree difference whether that cap exists or not. On both land and sea, data gathering is logisitically a tall challenge so data is sparse and the heterogenity of deposits is very variable.
Many thanks for again putting together a great and highly topically presentation on a pressing enviromental issue. Dean
"our collective inability to apply critical thinking to a blindingly obvious rapidly approaching catastrophe" Very succinctly put 😄
@@laurencetayloruk the only blindly obvious catastrophe is the eventual collapse of civilisation devolving into a state of constant war and starvation for all but the anointed elites who have chosen themselves to rule over the poor ignorant masses who feel for the scam.
Exactly. I was expecting too much out of the species to hope for a better world. We are just dumb animals.
It might be more obvious if there wasn't so much control, restriction, greed, and poorly thought out schemes to rid ourselves of valuable carbon fuels. Much of the science is not settled, and opponents voices are silenced through coercion and shunning from careers, publication, advancement, etc. This is not how science is supposed to happen, so to myself a scientist, none of this appears as science that is anywhere near blindingly obvious. Rather it looks rather cynically manipulative by media manipulators and political ideology.
There is no catastrophe.
@@tarstarkusz hello Russian bot with zero evidence
Always great work and efficiently delivered. Thanks.
Yep he is one of the best propagandists since Goebbels.
Subscribed > 3 years. Can't be a Patreon but you have my gratitude for straightforward reportage ...❤😅
There’s a new source in town, and so far I’ve found no one who mentioned anything about it. That source is SpaceX, specifically its Starship/Superheavy rocket powered by O2 & CH4. I’m not good at quoting numbers, but from what’s been posted, some 7 tons of CH4 is dumped into the atmosphere every time SH is either tested or flown. A smaller amount is also released during Starship testing. And in the very near future, Starship launches will be increasing significantly - it’s the vehicle that will launch its newer, heavier internet satellites. It’s also the ship destined to head to the moon (?) and mars. And with each of those missions, Starship will be visited by 8-10 tanker version ships (the actual number required yet tbd).
Somewhere along the line it would be nice if someone in the know would do the calculations for how much raw methane SpaceX will be dumping into the atmosphere on a yearly basis. I would not be at all surprised to hear that SpaceX will be the single biggest source of methane releases on the planet.
Oh, and during flight of Starship - the orbital component - it will dump over a thousand tons of water vapor into the stratosphere. I do hope someone out there can do the requisite calculations.
Good presentation, btw.
Nicely done as always, no small feat to present such unpopular facts in an engaging and sobering way without added drama. Nicely done.
When I looked into meat consumption, most of the increase in beef, pork and lamb seemed to be coming from developing countries. The new middle class in Asia use to view meat as a luxury and can now afford it. Beef consumed per capita while chicken consumption had increased in developed countries. It would be interesting to see if that is still the case.
Finally the methane bomb is presented. Next: the real consequences of the aerosol masking effect.
Thank you so much for mentioning plant-based eating. I wholeheartedly believe that it is the most important change we can make when it comes to fighting climate change. Eating plant-based helps with greenhouse gas emissions, pollution of groundwater and surface water, deforestation, public health and the economy of countries with public healthcare. And you can get all the nutrients you need to be happy and healthy, so you are not throwing your health away for the sake of the climate.
Thanks!
Welcome!
Great report just terrifying that we may be going into a new era of self regulation of industry by industry I.e themselves. Of course we will be told that this is efficiency.
Also worth pointing out that the mere 280ppm of co2 we had, whilst miniscule, was the difference between what we had and an iceball earth.
Another way to look at it is the pre-existing greenhouse gas concentrations are why the Earth's climate (15°C average surface temperature) is not like the Moon's (-20 °C or much lower, depending on how you measure it).
@@skierpage It would be -18c on earth blackbody equilibrium without greenhouse gasses. :)
@@skierpage Malcom’s claim is plainly false since CO2 levels were dramatically higher during earth’s ice ball era than even today. There is lots wrong with the present CO2 narrative.
The Stefan Boltzmann equation is absolutely correct. Its repercussions are absolutely terrifying.
@@my-rocket Was curious about your cryptic-to-me remark and asked the all-knowing internet:
"The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can be considered "terrifying" because it demonstrates how dramatically the amount of radiated energy from a blackbody increases with even small changes in temperature, due to the "fourth power" relationship, meaning a small temperature increase can lead to a massive jump in radiated energy; essentially, the hotter something gets, the exponentially faster it radiates heat, which can have significant implications in extreme scenarios like stellar physics or nuclear reactions."
I myself have just lost control of methane as I watched this
The answer my friend ...
Gosh ... same here ...😂🎉
If you can smell it, it's not methane.
Those who deny it, supply it
When In doubt, do the fart joke, The fartin philosopher.
I subscribe with no issues.
Thank-you and please keep up the valuable work.
Thank you for covering this topic.
Thank you for what you do
My friend, who is a very left liberal and not an idiot did not realize that "natural gas" is methane. They have done a great job with marketing
Now we're cooking with gas... 😢
(climate town reference?
Don't they teach you this in school? I knew it since high school.
And I expect many on the right of the political spectrum also don't know that methane is natural gas.
They've also slammed it down the consumers throat that LNG is "Green" which is a wild thing to think about. LNG is not green in anyway, it's just less harmful than diesel/petrol.
Natural gas got is name in the 1800's.
I may have said this before ...
This channel, and information like this, *MUST* be made available to school children* near the end of their school education, where nuance matters! Accurate, science based, informed, reasonable, no bias, backed up by good, peer reviewed sources.
Perhaps I'm an "educationalist" - my invented word? - and those that receive poor education for whatever reason**, may leave school early, are educated under a possibly biased system (like a religious system), understand the world less well than is good for them, and local or global society.
.
.
.
*(5th or L6th, U6th in my day; (year 11 or 12 - never have understood that system, so I might be wrong!)
**poor investment, poor country, religious bias***
***Fundamentalist Christians and Muslim groups seem most culpable; but no doubt any religion is biased.
Definitely not. They get enough lies and propaganda as it is. Only over educated idiots believe this bs.
10:45 There are no actual global observational data on changes to permafrost. The Li et al 2022 paper 'Changes in permafrost extent and active layer thickness in the Northern Hemisphere from 1969 to 2018' states "The temporal change characteristics of the permafrost extent and ALT [active layer thickness] for the NH [Northern Hemisphere] have not been studied."
These things have only been poorly estimated or modelled.
The aforementioned paper modelled permafrost extent decreased from 23.25 × 10⁶km2 (average from 1969 to 1973) to 21.64 × 10⁶km2 (average from 2014 to 2018), with a linear rate of −0.023 × 10⁶ km2/a. That's an annual change of 0.099 of a percent. That's negligible and could just as easily be increasing due to the uncertainty in the modelling.
Out of global estimated emissions of methane of around 600 Tg CH4 per year, the best estimate of emissions from pan-Arctic permafrost is 1 Tg CH4 per year (Elder et al, 2021), so that's less than 0.17%. It's almost nothing.
It was great to see a scientific overview of the 'Permafrost' situation, it made interesting reading, and thanks for the time/trouble taken.
One rather disturbing factor is the slow rise in temperature of the existing permafrost, so much of it is nearing its 'melting state'. One big problem is when the permafrost thaws, and to the high bacterial activity creating heat, perhaps as high as 20°C to 70°C, this, create a chain reaction rapidly warming up adjacent material.
I think that the methane emission figures during the next four years or so will be alarmingly high, both from natural and man made sources. As the situation looks at this moment in time, it will become yet another irreversible tripping point. It has been estimated that the permafrost soils from just the Northern regions could generate as much one gigaton of methane by 2100. Half that would be, I guess, catastrophic!
Excellent and well researched. Well done Dave. Again!
Natgas capture from landfills is lucrative I would think a no brainer for municipalities
Just want to say Thank you for your videos, as they give good insight in the science behind the talking points. Eventhough this video also didn't make me jump with joy ofcourse. Over the last decade I have come to see more and more how it is entirely possible that there have been many great, technologically advanced civilisations before us. Just like us they stopped chiselling our history and advancements in stone so when they eventually destroyed themselves by a descent in stupity and willfull ignorance, not a trace of them (us) ever existing was left.
3:50 Methane isn't actually much better at stopping infared light, its just that the methane blocks wavelengths of light that carbon dioxide let's through. The combined effect is much greater than either single gas.
Its kind of like a stack of sieves with slightly different sized holes; You capture more material than a single sieve.
Add to that the positive feedback loop(s) of one pre-heating the other and vice versa.
This is not to be confused with the other positive feedback of a rise in temperature leading to more methane being released.
In a practical sense, that a bit misleading since we are concerned with the additive effect of increasing concentrations of these gases given the current atmospheric composition. For example, given an atmosphere where CO2 is 400ppm and CH4 is 1.4ppm, the effect of adding 1ppm of CH4 would be greater that adding 50ppm of CO2 (in terms of radiative forcing). [this is my quick radiative forcing calc, so check this for yourself to verify it]
@@BurnettMary yes that is the right idea but if it were the other way around and the atmosphere had mostly methane the warming effect of adding a little CO2 would be more than the effect of adding more methane.
Yes, methane does absorb (and emit) at wavelengths that CO2 does, but water vapor, at at least 600 times the concentration of methane does.
Methane does so near to nothing that all sensible people ignore it.
@@AuJohnM'sensible' people.....by which you mean oil companies, climate science deniers and irresponsible governments and not climate scientists.
That said, 'sensible' people are ignoring the potential problems of methane likely to be released by the melting of the permafrost in arctic regions and seabed.
New subscriber. Nothing is more compelling than reality, and science allows us to understand what is real so that we can save ourselves. Thank you for your content.
Thank you for your work! It is so very needed in "modern times". Your title ist a little misleading. WE don't have lost control or whatever. We lost attention and mindfulness to the problems and the nature around us. I am scared of people voting people which do want to dismantle all wind turbines and restart the gas pipelines to Ruzzia. Unbelievable - BUT true!!! EVERY day these things you mention should be shown in the first 10 minutes in all TV shows before starting the show. "the party is over" as someone of the Club Of Rome stated years ago! Thank you. Martin from Germany
Another reason NOT to use hydrogen in transportation or otherwise if it can be avoided.
Hydrogen leaks easily and can lead to slower degradation of methane. This occurs because hydrogen easily combines with certain molecules in the lower atmosphere before they can make their way to the upper atmosphere where they would combine with and thus degrade methane's warming capabilities.
The more hydrogen escaping into our atmosphere, the less methane degradation.
Instead of degrading in 12 years it may be much longer.
Yup. And because dirty hydrogen from leaky natural gas is 95+% of the hydrogen supply, and because it takes so much more renewable energy to make green H2, hydrogen in transportation may only be lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than diesel if the H2 is 90% from green H2 powered 100% by renewables. Spoiler: it isn't. Next time you read about some dopey hydrogen bus or truck trial, ask what % of its H2 supply _currently_ comes from 100% renewably powered green H2.
Interesting I had not heard of that.
@ Look up article entitled "Risk of the hydrogen economy for atmospheric methane".
👍
IF you think Methane emissions are bad, wait until you find out about Nitrous Oxide emissions: "Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years."
"Livestock' Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". FAO. Rome. 2006
"Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011
That number seems really high. I'm guessing they're including the nitrous oxide from producing livestock feed? Also, those seem like rather old references?
A more recent 2024 epa estimate, did not find exact answer in very brief googling. From the other hits on google, it would appear to be more like 32% livestock, not 65%.
Agriculture is rated at 60%.
www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#:~:text=The%20application%20of%20nitrogen%20fertilizers%20accounts%20for%20the%20majority%20of%20N2O%20emissions%20in%20the%20United%20States. "The application of nitrogen fertilizers accounts for the majority of N2O emissions in the United States. "
Just like Ch4 N2o emissions are incapable of causing much warming, the physics are well understood.
Just like Ch4 N2o has a VERY narrow band of long wave Infrared frequencies it can absorb, and its frequency bands are overlapped with some other more numerous greenhouse gases like H2o.
These bands are already mostly saturated meaning that it does not matter how much N2o is outgassed into the atmosphere the vast majority of those outgoing long wave Infrared frequencies CANNOT be absorbed and reradiated by N2o.
They just go out to space.
@@peterjones4180 Complete BS. Let me guess, you're an animal exploiter??? FACTS..... "N2O is much less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide or methane (the two primary human-made greenhouse gases), but its global warming potential is nearly 300 times that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale. N2O is also a strong ozone-depleting substance."
research.noaa.gov/nitrous-oxide-emissions-grew-40-percent-from-1980-to-2020-accelerating-climate-change/
I noticed the goal to stop warming, is now at 2C. May the 1.5C be buried with full honors.
As it was at least 2 Deg C warmer than now only around a thousand years ago i fail to see the problem.
Further it was significantly warmer, 2000, 3000 and 6000-8000 years ago.
The 1.5 Deg figure was simply propaganda spread by the political wing of the IPCC and reluctantly supplied by a professor at the Potsdam institute who as he said simply plucked a figure out of the air to please them.
He described 1.5 Deg C as scientifically meaningless.
How is it that you did not know that.
You do such a great job! i work with a non-profit that organizes folks over age 60 to get active on climate and energy issues. Your videos are top notch and I recommend to anyone who wants to learn. Thank you.
Well Nancy its pretty clear YOU dont understand much about the physics involved in this subject.
This channel is PURE propaganda, marked frequently by what they deliberately leave out of their presentations in order to deceive their viewers.
Feed the cattle grass instead of corn. Methane problem solved, and also no longer a need to give them any antibiotics. Corn is the problem, well, corn and greed.
"your chemistry teacher pointed out" LOL, most of the trolls clearly have got little or no education in school.
That, plus the factor a meat and dairy based diet plays into the mass level extinction event we're in, made my friends, famlily and me vegans, years ago.
There are so many reasons to eat less meat. Besides the environmental benefits, it's healthier, preserves wilderness, and fewer creatures suffer and die.
@@skierpage How does it preserve wilderness? So much more land will need to be cleared to produce the crops that are supposed to replace meat. Cattle are a useful part of land management and non-vegetarian diet is healthier than vegetarian. Besides, it will make no difference to alleged AGW to eliminate meat eating.
Vegans are like musicians that went to Berklee: you don't have to ask, they'll tell you. I just wonder which one vegan musicians from Berklee lead with.
@@joemccarthy7120 animals require about 10x the land to be fed to produce the same amount of human food. It's very inefficient.
So we could end up with huge amounts of wilderness if we weren't using it to grow crops to turn into meat.
How do I put this. We live in a capitalistic society animal farming is going to go the way of the wind why laboratory grown meat will end up being cheaper. Cheaper to produce cheaper to transport cheaper. More profit. And I still get my barbecued steak😅
Ahh … you skipped straight to un-burned methane - leakage.
Correct in the science, but it needs context of why gas extraction generates leakage.
Overall, excellent video.
** edit: US avoided developing cheap RE by investing in fracked gas. EU used Russian gas.
Longer term, both a mistake.
Nice work!
UA-cam unsubscribed me and I just came back. 600k is good, but really it should be 600M!! Keep up the good work 👍
I’m 75 years old. Greenhouse gases have risen dramatically during my lifetime. As the permafrost thawed out, and continues to thaw out, all around the world, tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases are released and this can’t be stopped. Our activities created the thaw, and now there is nothing that can be done. It is beyond our control. So, “have a think!”
Too late to stop the permafrost from melting and releasing gigatons of CO2, CH4, & NO. We are already in full-on feedback loop mode. In addition we've already baked in 2.5°C to 3.0°C with our current 525ppm CO2-eq. It will take every bit of human effort ingenuity & sacrifice to keep us below 4°C by the end of century.
Have you seen Dr. Peter Carter lately? We are now projecting worse than RCP 8.5.
@everythingmatters6308 Yes and I believe he and Jim Hanson are correct.
James Hansen….?
Those are just predictions, there’s not even significant confidence in the 1.3 degrees warming since the industrial start. It could be less that 1 degree
Correct. We are in an Ice Age Termination Event and those are irreversible and unstoppable.
Not to be a doomer, but since the 2010s, the most significant increase has been from natural sources, mostly tropical wetlands. This may mean that we have crossed a tipping point.
“Research from 2020 has demonstrated that the spike in atmospheric methane levels in recent decades is coming from natural gas extraction (as opposed to farming and livestock, or natural sources such as peat bogs and melting permafrost). Moreover, the rise in methane is responsible for as much as 25 percent of the warming during this period.” - Michael Mann
@@cloudpoint0Now THATS a good source 😃
Makes me wonder why all western countries had wetland renewals as part of their plan over the last 20 years, they knew warming emissions from wetlands would double, why increase the number of them, overall was the view or habitat worth it.
But yeah cheap natural gas is awash around the world, Qatar turn it into jet fuel and give it to the airline free, Australia now the equal largest exporter since 2010 and places like Uk where home heating is more emissions than all electricity, both done with gas and all gas well's leak, be really hard to imagine the simplest explanation isn't the main reason, especially since fracking etc kicked off then.
I busted out laughing when you started off the video '... if we are going to stay below 2 degrees..." It is the first time I have not heard or referred to 1.5. Thanks for being honest.
He's actually comparing CO2, without which there would be no life on Earth (flora or fauna), with metabolic poison like Cyanide.
That's the point at which I left the audience.
Thanks for reporting on methane. A couple points you made, however, need a little clarification.
The first is that, the reason why methane's ability to act as a greenhouse gas goes from approximately 80 to approximately 20 times CO2's ability is not because it somehow changes in its molecular properties, its because the people who calculated this assume the methane molecules will be oxidized to CO2 by UV light and oxygen over time. In effect, they assume there will be less methane over time. This way of reporting methane's greenhouse gas properties, is deceptive, as you implied.
I find it particularly deceptive because, since the methane levels in the atmosphere are increasing, the immediate greenhouse gas effect, which is, I believe found to be around 120 times that of CO2, Is the effect we feel.
The second thing I want to clarify is to do with methane from ruminants. It is true, that feed lot cattle who are fed a grain heavy diet produce lots of methane in their many stomachs. However, cows which are grass fed produce much less methane, aside from growing healthier, tastier meat.
Cows which are managed in ways which mimic nature, such as mob grazing, can rebuild soil. Soil has more than 5 times more carbon than the vegetation growing on it. Rebuilding soil can sequester 10 tons of CO2 per acre per year. Deserts can be turned into carbon sucking savannahs in a dozen years or so when livestock is managed this way. Its been done in many places already.
So, imo, we need to change how livestock is managed, not whether we should have livestock.
Pity you seem to have no understanding of how Ch4 operates as a greenhouse gas.
If you understood the physics you would understand that no matter how much CH4 goes into the atmosphere it is incapable of causing dangerous warming.
The more in the atmosphere the larger the drop in its ability to add additional warming.
Aint no point talking about this when armies around the world are launching missiles and using ICE to move thier weapons of war
Your whatboutism isn't helpful.
Guess we will have to walk and chew gum at the same time...
@@tradeprosper5002 The US military and military-industrial complex are among the globe's biggest GHG emitters so the walk-and-chew-gum approach is absolutely correct. Anti-imperialism and climate justice are not only related struggles but inseparably bound up with each other. Anyone wondering why Greta Thunberg seems to have pivoted to marching in support of the Palestine liberation movement, this is why.
@@skierpage Yes it is. Very ironically it's your (and billions of others') willful ignorance of the situation which isn't helpful.
Well actually it is helpful for the powers who want to keep using 20,000,000,000 litres of oil per year for their completely pointless endeavors. The more people that point this out the better. Don't forget they've already destroyed the lives of about 800,000 children this year alone. By destroyed I mean no longer breathing or mutilated.
The big war right now was literally funded by methane and oil sales...
Most rich people stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then most poor people stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich but impressing them. People prefer to spend money on liabilities, Rather than investing in assets and be very profitable
You are so correct! Save, invest and spend for necessities and a few small luxuries relatives to one's total assets ratio.
Investing in crypto now should be in every wise individuals list, in some months time you'll be ecstatic with the decision you made today.
I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price
Now, I Just realized that the secret to making a million is saving for better trades. I always tell myself you don't need that new Maserati or that vacation just yet. That mindset helped me make more money trading. For example last year I Traded with 10k in Crypto and made about $146k, but guess what? I put it all back and traded again and now I am rounding up close to a million
Hello how do you make such?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 🤦♀️of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God
If they were really concerned they would plant a trillion trees. That alone would make the UN objectives.
I agree with efficiency, But lately it looks like pockets of governments are trying to get too much control over the Worlds Food. Efficiency and innovation is good. Lack of food, power, & heating is not. "Banning" farmers is a deadly idea.
Hello and welcome to just have a drink😊
I remember back in uni doing a project on the methane clathrates, and learning the 50GT number and realizing for the first time we were all effectively standing on a huge bomb, and constantly trying to set it off.
Blaming the cows is below the belt. Take away humans and all will be just fine on this earth.
Yeah but that's unethical, you can't just "take away" humans, but you CAN reduce the things humans do.
This is actually a very valid point. Population growth is to a great extend ignored in the climate debat. But if we really want to avoid serious climate change, we need to reduce population growth and applude population decline.
@@jasenanderson8534 You CANNOT reduce the things humans do, just like you cannot reduce humans. Life and liberty.
take away humans and you've just caused the extinction of most animals who've evolved to co-exist with us. That includes cows.
@@onetwothreeabc there are plenty of countries with active policies to encourage fertility rates and population growth. You can start with stopping that and then move on to policies that actually support a decline. Nothing difficult or unethical about that. Or we can just continue off the cliff...
You did not mention fracking and the emission through the ground of not just methane but ethane, even more blanketing than methane and released in large quantities in the process. In fact methane from fracking has been estimated at 8% of global release. The problem is wider than you speculate.
Wonderful talk. As always ❤
Still subscribed. Good video, thanks for doing the work.
925 million humans (1 in 9) suffer from hunger, yet 80 billion unnaturally bred animals on farms are given enough human edible food that could support 4 billion humans directly. -University of Minnesota
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
What people keep missing is that an extremely tiny percentage of a huge number still makes for a huge number; and a large percentage of a very tiny number, still makes for a tiny number!
I had an argument with one of my friends involving the small percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. He said "nothing that tiny can have such an affect on our climate." So I asked him since it was that tiny, if he'd be willing to take on that tiny percentage of our national debt and he said "sure, no problem!" and gave me this smile kind of saying "See, what's the fuss!" Thus, together we looked up the number of our national debt and together we did the math. Needless to say he turned somewhat pale when it started to dawn on him ...
This IS terrific!
your analogy is ass.
I love your channel!!
Thanks. Well Done. There ain't no future like there used to be.
Very true! Thanks for your support
great video
At one point there were 50-100 million Buffalo roaming the USA, naturally without human help. They weren't raising methane levels back then. Methane only survives about 25 years in the atmosphere, which is a very short-lived molecule.
So what? The point is natural sources and sinks of methane, just like carbon, were nicely balanced until we showed up and leaked millions of tons of methane AND intensively raise a billion animals for livestock, causing the increased methane concentration.
and there are somewhere around 80 million cows in the US now
But what they eat is nothing like the diet of buffalo.
@@theoldbuzzard5239 yes, buffalo eat grass and many cows eat things like silage and, overall, produce more emissions than buffalo or grass fed cows do as grassland stores carbon
"At one point there were 50-100 million Buffalo roaming the USA, naturally without human help." - More like 30-60 million, but that was back in the 1500s, when the human population of the entire planet was less than half a billion, and very few Texans had giant pickup trucks.
But Carbon dioxide is not only toxic, it is very toxic. The work place limit is just 0.5%. 1% will have noticeable physiological effects, 4-5% will cause significant respiratory distress and unconsciousness within minutes, 8-10% Can cause unconsciousness within seconds and death after a single breath or very short exposure. This is due to rapid disruption of normal respiratory function, oxygen displacement, and severe acidosis.
Utter rubbish, Co2 IS NOT TOXIC !
It simply displaces Oxygen.
5000 ppm is no problem at all.
How about you talk in ppm eh.
Current atmospheric concentration is around .04 %
As always, you’ve nailed it….
😮I am impressed. There are millions of seeps. Persia, Iran today, worshiped the fire temples, where gas seeps are great enough to not be blown out by a breeze. The continental shelf is covered with Fire ice nodules. Methane compressed by water pressure into a solid.
GWP(0) of CH4 is "at least" 120 times that of CO2. As long as the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is growing with no end in sight we should not use GWP(20) or GWP(100) of CH4. That is simply dishonest.
Great content as usual. Do SpaceX Starships emit methane at launch? And how much would be bad for us? All animals release methane domesticated or wild - yet that data is not shown because its insignificant?
The topic of the launch of space craft is something of a taboo. Kind of like the results of any activity preclude the consideration of shared costs as long as I want it. People will rationalize this kind of pursuit regardless of the impacts which include punching holes in the ozone layer, massive use of fuel, extremely high dollar cost (which is thought to be a great thing by those who like GNP) and of course the placing of our dreams away from the simple ways of the rest of life on the planet on which we depend. Mind on the stars instead of here and now.
@@danielfaben5838 The best answer
At first I wanted to write your comment off as naive and "it could never be relevant next to airline emission". But from what I found it could soon be very relevant, with the spaceflight sector having a boom and emissions high up in the sky. It seems to be a great question for a deep dive video!
There's no carbon in rocket fuel.
That's why we should colonize the moon and launch from there
Denialists simultaneously say that the low ppm of carbon dioxide won't do anything, while also suggesting that higher carbon dioxide means better agriculture production.
That's coming from the idea that CO2 is not that powerful when it comes to warming, but it would make a large difference with plant growth.
@@kmoses582 And you support that "idea"?
@@jaykanta4326 Do you not realize that plants use CO2
@@kmoses582
Do you not realise that a change in concentration changes the physiology of the plant?
I mean... YOU could breath a high oxygen atmosphere... would it be "good" for you? Or would it alter the balance of your Pulmonary system?
@@rogerstarkey5390 That does not change the fact that plants grow faster and use less water under ~400 PPM compared to 280 PPM.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
Big Ag, is against self sufficiency, got to get in your car and go to the store, can't have a green planet.
Thank you for the good summary! ❤
A friend’s dad worked for NIST 20+ years ago and was certainly concerned about methane being released into the atmosphere. But few were listening.
Those who were not listening probably understood more about the physics of Ch4 than his dad.
Ch4 is INCAPABLE of causing dangerous global warming.
Its long wave Infrared absorption band frequencies are VERY narrow and mostly overlapped by H2o.
It cannot absorb and re radiate much long wave infrared radiation at all.
MASS EXTINCTION EVENT
( OCCURING RIGHT NOW )
more like mass psychosis event.
The only extinction event happening is western women not having enough babies.
Have you gotten on Bluesky yet? 🐦
It doesn't look like it (I don't know Mr. Think's real name), but ClimateNews on bsky reliably features Just Have a Think videos.
I wish the excellent scientists on Climate Twitter, uh Xitter[1], would wholescale adopt Bluesky.
[1] pronounced as in Xi Jinping.
Thanks for your work:)
We've all heard about CO2 in our atmosphere causing warming by capturing infra red radiation and reflecting
it back to the Earth from a height of around 5 Km.
The Greenhouse Effect
The four main gases in the Earth's atmosphere are:
Nitrogen: The most abundant gas in the atmosphere, making up 78% of it.
Oxygen: Makes up 21% of the atmosphere.
Argon: Makes up 0.93% of the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
The last one, CO2, being a very small amount by comparison to the other three, is, nevertheless, HEAVIER THAN ALL OF THEM.
That being the case one might expect, relatively scarce as it is, the bulk of it to be at ground level.
As evidenced by the Earths flourishing green and pleasant lands.
In which case I'm waiting for someone to explain why there is allegedly so much of CO2 hanging around 5 km above the ground
to be able to reflect so much infra red as to warrant the catastrophic consequences predicted by the climate alarmists.
I have lost hope. Is our turn in the fermin paradox
don't be afraid of doomerism, not so much as a we're doomed no matter what we do but know that as "law abiding citizens" we're rendered and coerced to be completely helpless against the ecocidal damage caused by a few thousand billionaires and their strong ties in law making.
Well, apparently few intelligent species in the galaxy survive the ‘clever and consumption’ stage of development. Must be nice to live with the few who made it to ‘wise’.
Enrico Fermi: in the summer of 1950, Fermi was engaged in casual conversation about contemporary UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski while the group was walking to lunch. The conversation moved on to other topics, until Fermi later blurted out during lunch, "But where is everybody?" (Wikipedia.) A good reply would have been : The distance Earth's first radio transmissions have traveled is a very tiny fraction of the Milky Way's diameter, roughly 0.0009 or about 0.09%.
Important Note: This calculation assumes the radio waves haven't been significantly absorbed or scattered by interstellar matter. In reality, the strength of these early signals would decrease greatly over such a distance.
Perhaps other extra terrestrial beings capable of conceptual thought, science etc. cannot ever persuade the other beings capable of conceptual thought, science etc. that predictive behaviour can help beings survive longer as a whole, no matter how much money they have? Even the trillionaires.
@@toyotaprius79
You fell for "If in doubt, blame the other guy"?
If you want to have a think using some common sense there is only one way to prevent climate change. If the world ended cost of living today and made sure everyone had a home with solar power and communities growing all the food they need global emissions could collapse over 90% in 1 year. For every percentage you collapse the economy a percentage of world emissions is reduced. Less traffic to and from work. Less exporting and importing. Non essential jobs would completely be gone without cost of living. Capitalism would be dead and there would be no competition anymore. The threats of war would be over because lets be real capitalism and ideology creates war and fear. With a peaceful utopia like living environment nature would begin to restore itself and society would focus more on educations and the values of life. Understanding the perception of reality and removing the ideological manipulation the human race has corrupted itself with would disappear. The current state of affairs in this civilization around the world cannot be allowed anymore. We must fix the mistakes of our past and present to create a sustainable future or all will be lost forever.
THIS! (And get rid of nations, countries, and religions. We all live on the same world and, as far as we know, there's only 1 planet Earth in the universe.)
We can't escape climate change - it's part of the planets natural recovery process. We can however reduce pollution.
"If the world ended cost of living today and made sure everyone had a home with solar power and communities growing all the food they need global emissions could collapse over 90% in 1 year." - It wouldn't happen, though, because people resist change. Locally grown food means giving up any number of items we've got used to over the last 100-200 years. For the UK, for example: No bananas or pineapples ever. No tomatos all winter. Sprouts for an entire 2-3 month period from November onwards. It'd be a methane catastrophe!
"For every percentage you collapse the economy a percentage of world emissions is reduced" - Except the human population continues to grow hugely; economic growth will follow just as night follows day. It is inevitable, as everyone is a consumer, whether we like it or not.
We, as a population, can certainly make some changes which, long term, will have a huge beneficial impact on our environment - but every billion additional mouths to feed will undo all that good work. We need to find a humane way to stabilise, and ideally reduce, the sheer number of humans on the planet.
Good luck fighting capitalism, my friend.
@@onetwothreeabcsadly I agree
We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond
which there is no redemption.
JAMES HANSEN, director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, New York, December 2005
Great segment. Diverting organic waste away from landfills to composting is another important initiative that governments can undertake which benefits not only methane reductions but soil fertility
I appreciate you Dave!😊
Worth noting that methane from grazing ruminants is mostly a soil management /degradation problem and regenerative farming can be methane neutral or close to. Further intensive cropping being fed to animals in factory farms is a methane emitting disaster. Finally the number of ruminants kept for livestock isn't much greater the number that would have been naturally grazing on the world's grasslands before human industrialisation. It's a lot of HOW we are doing it.
Search & Read: DOI 10.1080/23311843.2017.1385693 and DOI 10.1088/2976-601X/ad64d7
1 adult, grass-fed, UK cow, in 1 year, emits 6140kg CO2
1 adult, grass-fed, UK cow, in 1 year emits 218kg CH4
1 adult, UK farmed cow, in 1 year emits [around] 1.4kg N2O
That's 32 tonnes of CO2e (GWP10) per cow, per year
A mature stand of deciduous UK tree sequesters ~20 tonnes of CO2 per year, per hectare
A best-in-class regeneratively-farmed hectare of soil can sequester ~2 tonne of CO2, per year
Put another way, after 12 Years, the GHG radiative forcing from one UK Adult cow's emissions total a cumulative 2,000,000kWh of global heating ... just from breathing, eating & excreting
And finally: each adult UK cow alive through 2024 year guarantees 50,000 cubic meters of Polar Ice Melt by 2100
Forget the emotions and the reasons for meat and dairy
Just look at the numbers and understand what they actually mean.
Then adjust your lifestyle
Please stop distracting from the message we need to reduce our meat consumption. Regeneratively grazed ruminants are still ruminants emitting methane. Sure, they might be suitable on some grasslands, but if we rewild and restore forest on grasslands instead of regeneratively graze cows on them, we reduce methane emissions while having those soils sequester carbon.
@@esrem5
Utter ignorant nonsense.
Google grasslands and get some education.
Then look up regenerative grazing.
7:30 the EU should put a hefty tax on beef and lamb, maybe on dairy products made from cows and sheep milk too, regardless of their origin (imports from outside the EU) to make everyone aware how dangerous and costly methane emissions are. the tax should be significant enough to make consumers think twice. I bet it won't take long before we see promising results. 🙂
Yes, they should totally do it!
🤡🤡🤡
Just removing the huge subsidies would be enough.
@@JamieTwells afraid not. that wouldn't cut it. if the EU were to cut CAP subsidies for their dairy and cattle farmers then these farmers would be forced to sell their products for a higher price. it wouldn't affect the Argentinian cattle baron selling their beef, it wouldn't affect the Australian/NZ sheep farmer selling their lamb meat and it would make dairy products from outside the EU flooding in. US farmers would sell far more of their stuff to EU consumers.
no, everything emitting methane in the production process needs to be taxed regardless of its place of origin: the EU, the US, China etc
i'm surprised Just Have a Think doesn't have way over 600,000 subscribers. i guess that's where we are.
Maybe if he stopped spreading Vegan misinformation he'd do better.
Cows don't magically make carbon. The carbon they burp comes from the food they eat. The food got that carbon from the atmosphere. It's called the biogenic carbon cycle.
The 'problem' on this planet is not the animals - it is the EXTRA fossil carbon we humans dig up and burn.
Blaming animals is just the Vegan religion's misinformation... hanging on the coat tails of the climate change movement for their own (very misinformed) reasons.
Blinded by bias.
The solution is: end the Money is Speech judicial doctrine and return the corporation to what it legally is, a licensed entity. Licensed as in, chartered by the public to work in the public interest.
We’ll be able to have the decisions about public policy made by the public process, which we are by law in a democracy supposed to have now.
As it is, corporations have control over the U.S. Congress and the governments of many nations, and legislating is done to preserve the stock value of the corporation, not the lives and health of the people.
I watched a doc a few years ago that spoke about the methane being released from all along the northern coastline of Russia! Shocking! I'd love to see you focus on this aspect of the methane conversation!
Oh sorry! You mentioned it slightly at 10:30
If you understood the physics of the greenhouse effect you would already know that Ch4 CANNOT cause much in the way of additional warming at all.
This is the principal reason why many jurisdictions are trying to phase out gas-burning appliances.
Bingo!
Don't worry, everthing'll be fine. We've signed a pledge.
$450k Returns the Lord is my saviour in times of my need!!!
wow this awesome 👏 I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
It's Ms. Susan Jane Christy doing, she's changed my life.
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Ms. Susan Jane Christy.
Can't imagine earning $85,000 biweekly, God bless Ms. Susan Jane Christy, God bless America 🇺🇸♥️
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insight!
Great video, thank you 👍