Which Greenhouse Gas is Actually the WORST? | Hot Mess 🌎
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2018
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateMESS
↓ More info and sources below ↓
Earth’s atmosphere naturally contains greenhouse gases. Without them, the world would be way too cold for humans. But we are adding extra greenhouse gases, which are causing Earth to heat up and disrupting weather patterns worldwide. So which of these many gases is heating Earth the most?
Connect with us on:
Twitter: / hotmesspbs
Instagram: / hotmesspbs
Facebook: / hotmesspbs
References: bit.ly/2wa6Zwr
-----------
Host/Editor-In-Chief: Joe Hanson, Ph.D.
Writer: Adam Levy DPHIL
Creative Director: David Schulte
Editors/Animators: Karl Boettcher
Producers: Stephanie Noone & Amanda Fox
Story Editor: Alex Reich
-----------
Produced by PBS Digital Studios
Theme Music: Eric Friend/Optical Audio
Music: APM
Stock images from www.shutterstock.com
Thanks to the funders of Peril & Promise for supporting PBS Digital Studios. Peril & Promise is a national public media initiative from WNET telling human stories of climate change and its solutions. Learn more at www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-pro...
It would have been cool to cover why certain gases have a stronger greenhouse effect than others!
Stephen Bly it's because of various gases structure and how different chemical bonds vibrate.
If you want to figure out why certain gases are stronger you use the equation 3N-6 for straight molecules and 3N-5 for bent molecules. Where N=number of atoms and the answer equals the number of differing vibration frequencies. Co2 for example has 3 atoms and is straight so the answer would be 3 vibrations. Co2 actually only vibrates at 2 frequencies though because 2 of its bonds are identical so they only count as 1 but would be stronger. The frequencies the molecule vibrates at is where it absorbs radiation as infrared energy. Infrared energy is heat energy so this absorption is what blocks the heat from escaping earth.
CH4 has 5 atoms and is not bent so it would have 9 vibrations in its structure. Many if these overlap as it has 4 identical bonds in its structure so I believe you end up with 3 frequencies of absorption but because of the extra atomic bonds these can be a bit stronger than co2.
I dont know if i explained this well enough, im sure Joe could do a better job so a video would be nice but for more information look up infrared spectroscopy, dipole moment, and molecular vibration.
Brian Merkosky it is also about concentrations in the atmosphere (saturation). The same molecule, e.g. CO2, has a much stronger warming effect from 0 ppm to 50 ppm than from 400 ppm to 450 ppm.
Stephen. If you mean "stronger greenhouse effect" in the sense of "per molecule effect", see Brian's answer. If you mean in the sense of "overall end effect", that's just a function of the concentration of each gas in the atmosphere and some math. If methane had a concentration similar to what CO2 has now, an injection of a given amount of methane would have much less effect than an injection of the same amount would have now. Logarithms determine the "overall end effect".
The actual GWP values assigned to each GHG depend on the following factors:
- the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species
- the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths
- the atmospheric lifetime of the species
The first one is quantum physics related. Some sort of complicated weighting formula is applied to these factors.
The following video is very good for explaining the whole greenhouse gas picture, and explains how some molecules trap heat in our atmosphere and others don't, and why. For me personally it pretty much cleared up my confusion:
ua-cam.com/video/sTvqIijqvTg/v-deo.html
I'm very surprised that nitrous oxide was not mentioned.
it probably isnt the WORST one
Would pumping out sulfur hexafluoride be a possible terraforming tactic for heating up an atmosphere to a habitable temperature?
JTJutajoh It has been put forward as one of the first steps for Mars. Right after putting up a magnetic field at the l1 point between mars and the sun.
Terraforming? - how about we fix the earth first.
@@paulsawczyc5019 Humanity is capable of doing multiple things at once. One does not stop the other from happening.
Yep - like destroying the earth in multiple ways.
@@paulsawczyc5019 no debate there. We apear to be a species doomed to destroy itself. But terraforming another planet is not part of that.
Methane might be worse though. There are something like 5 gigatons in the athmosphere right now, but there are more than 800 gigatons of methane trapped in permafrost or in arctic submarine permafrost etc. If "only" 50 gigatons would be released in a big "methane burb" then it might already be over and way faster than we think.
Dejay Rezme good point. One more thing they missed and that frustrates me with this channel.
You are right, I like people like you that can think and not just jump on the co2 bandwagon.
100% this. Methane and NOS are the problem, not Co2.
Methane has a lifetime around 12 years right? It's rather short. Keen to see some numbers how much gigatons of methane the arctic could emit in a year. It dissapears. On the contrary Co2 can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of times longer, building up more and more.
That's my current understanding.
@@CellarPhantom I think there might also be various "saturation points" where more of one greenhouse gas doesn't cause that much damage because the window in the spectrum of the heat radiation is already closed.
But generally 12 years is a long enough to cause total chaos and to trigger further and faster release of more methane or other feedback loops.
Why "turn thing around" when scientists say that they don't know if more CO2 is a good or bad thing. We are at almost 8 billion humans on this earth, we need food, the earth is greener because of the 400 parts per million CO2, the plants will die if they get less than 150 parts per billion, are they sure we should be cutting down on CO2? at what level do they think they can fine tune this earth when it comes to CO2?
The problem is that global warming will cause the oceans to absorb CO2 and alot of marine life will perish. Sea levels will rise because the poles will melt which will cause mass migrations. So yeah, maybe the planet is becoming greener but at the same time other species, including humans, are being threatened and are unlikely to survive.
@@DarkAngelEU sea levels are not rising islands in the mid pacific have been observed gaining land over the years in fact Tuvalu a nation expected to sink into the ocean due to sea level rise has gained 2.9% land mass with 'reported' sea level rises twice the global average. work that one out.
@@DarkAngelEU What's up with you people and your doomsday scenarios? How do you know humans aren't likely to survive? When has man observed that too much CO2 in the atmosphere caused the earth to burn up?
@@JetfireQuasar I'm not an expert but I can guess from the top of my mind it has to do something ith the crust of the earth moving or expanding vertically. Not that hard to crack, wise guy.
@@PeTroL420 Look up past Ice Ages and maybe learn something for once in your stupid life.
Hey, thank you so much for sharing this, a great value in this video. Just wondering if Is there an official source or study you would know or recommend to have official support on this information? in case I want to work with it.
Thanks!
"All of the extra CO2 has caused 70% of the warming over the last 250 years" Really? How do you get to that conclusion, and why 250 years?
Industrial revolution
90% of statistics are made up on the spot.
It's interesting that *NO ONE* speaks of the sun as it relates to global warming and climate change!
I eat chickens rather than cows. So, I guess I'm saving the Earth? Or perhaps if we ate all the cows, then we'd be saving the Earth? ...I'm confused.
Eating chicken instead of cow is more like harming earth less, as opposed to saving it.
But if we don't eat the cows, then they'll continue polluting the atmosphere with their methane.
Gravijta
If we dont it the cows there is no one that is going to feed, protect from predeturs, give medicine and a lot of thing to the cows because no one is earning money from that.
If we stop eating cows they will die.
Chicken is also not sustainable because you feed it a lot of food in Order to grow. Food that humans could eat! Plant-based is the way to go :)
Jakob D
Yeh but chicken isnt that bad because it doesnt live a lot of time so you dont feed it for a long time, just a few wiks.
I'm really happy to see this series.
These videos have enhanced my perspective on the topic of global warming, and as a result I have been successfully able to change my life style significantly. One of which includes maintaining a healthy and sustainable vegiterian diet :)
I've tried using less hot water minimizing standby appliances and walking rather than driving
But changing ur diet seems alot more effective unfortunately for me
I don't personally do the vegan/vegetarian stuff but something people can try is telling other people about how much impact meat production has
2 of my friends stripped their diet of meat and dairy products even though in not vegan myself
That's awesome! :)
Hello you might look at a reducetarian diet & lifestyle. Or Mediterranean diet & zero waste movement. I've cut beef, shrimp, lobster & snacks in unrecyclable packaging (like black plastic), reduced all other meat, fish, dairy & sugar, stopped buying new & reduced plastic (especially single use). Occasionally having fried chicken helps keep me motivated! Walking really makes a huge difference, considering just carbon footprint it's more than eating plant based diet iirc.
That’s good that you have advanced. Congratulations!
Please note that while you may have improved in your habits, vegetarian eating is far from sustainable. Dairy is VERY heavy on global warming, as are eggs.
Animal uses is just harmful and unnecessary. Aside from being unjustifiable on ethical grounds. Look it up.
www.cowspiracy.com and the documentary is a good starting point.
Consider going vegan.
Mauro Draco K. Bigatto
Another nonsensical comment from a preachy vegan! Humans evolved to eat meat this is what made us human !
Rice Growing Emits More Methane as Climate Warms
www.treehugger.com/climate-change/rice-growing-more-methane-climate-warms.html
Increased greenhouse-gas intensity of rice production under future atmospheric conditions
Kees Jan van Groenigen, Chris van Kessel & Bruce A. Hungate
Nature Climate Change volume 3, pages 288-291 (2013) doi:10.1038 nclimate1712
www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1712
Where Are The World's Hotspots of Climate-Induced Food Insecurity?
www.treehugger.com/climate-change/where-are-the-worlds-hotspots-of-climate-induced-food-insecurity.html
Wheat, one of the world's most important crops, is being threatened by climate change
By Chelsea Harvey
www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/12/climate-change-is-really-bad-for-wheat-which-is-really-bad-for-us/
Why All Humans Need To Eat Meat For Health
breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
Agriculture contributes to climate change both by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and by the conversion of non-agricultural land such as forests into agricultural land.[5] Agriculture, forestry and land-use change contributed around 20 to 25% to global annual emissions in 2010.[6]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture
Fossil fuels are feeding the world.
blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/
Vegans attack: A carnivore replies!
ua-cam.com/video/tv6kFH-WwgA/v-deo.html
Please provide video on Indian climate in easy language
I'm not saying that the rest are bad, but Joe is my favourite.
Love you guys @ HM!!!!
Increasing Co2 and a slight increase in temperature is great news for an ever-increasing population.
True, increased agricultural. The Jurassic has co2 at 2000 ppm and it was very green then.
Yeah - but no Humans!
Well, not if that population lives in low lying coastal areas.
@@108Marycelestial Currently I would say 1000-1200 ppm is the optimum we should strive for. That is the optimal amount of CO2 for C3 photosynthesizing plants (95% of all plants on earth). Added benefit: less water needed for photosynthesis.
@@Dirkietje8 may be so but maybe not a very good level for us. Humans get problems with studieng and staying focussed at that high levels. I dont know at what level exactly but in HVAC world we use 1200ppm as max allowed concentration.
I think in normal conditions, the worst greenhouse gas you can emit is laughing gas. Seriously.
I love these videos but it would be dope if sources were posted for the statistics!
I hope as many people as possible will see the videos on your channel
No citations?
I forgot to bring a towel to wipe my brain dry after watching this.
5 years from the future here, we have had time but nothing gets done at this point. People still use fossil fuel, trees are starting to get boiled faster than they can adapt to the heat, ice cap are becoming a limited time events before they become non existences, cities are getting flooded way harder than they were built to endured,..
We are not out of time but we are running out of options.
Great video! I love it when Joe narrates it.
I got into the habit of tunring off the valve to the stove EACH TIME I finished using it. It was in the lower right cabinet and EASY to DO!!!!
What is the optimum average temperature for earth?
before the industrialization era, where the temperature has always been stable for about 70,000 years
Could you put it in parts per million so we can compare them better
Pretty sure that sulfur hexafluoride is the stuff that Adam Savage breathed in (and released) in that video where he did voices. :D
voice sounds like satan and insanely high GWP (hexafluoride of sulfur aka brimstone which is what hell is filled with) makes SF6 greenhouse gas from hell
Thank you so much
3.34 you say that when the level of CO2 has gone up the temperature has also gone up and when the level of C02 has gone down so has the temperature - do you have any data to prove that direct connection? There seems to be very little data/measurements available to support that. The amount of water vapour and temperature seems to follow each other a lot more.
Do you have a dataset with temperature and water vapor of the last century?
Data show that despite the increase of other greenhouse gases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has remained the same.
Probably would have been smart to cover SO2 in there
Great video really understood what greenhouse gas means
Can you please do a video on why Climate Change deniers saying we shouldn’t worry about CO2 because Methane is a stronger gas is the wrong thing to say? From what I understand, Methane is a short-lived GHG, while CO2 is a lot more permanent, so, over the long term, any heat increase caused by methane is decreased when it dissipates into CO2.
The good thing about methane is its warming effect is short-lived once we stop emitting it.
The bad thing about methane is we keep directly emitting more, and cause nature to emit more by thawing out the Arctic tundra, etc.
Pre industrial age co2 levels were at 280 ppm. It has taken over 300 years for co2 to reach the 400 ppm level. Man is only responsible for 3% of that increase. That means over a 300 year span of time, the earth has naturally produced over 100 more ppm of co2. In the past, the earth has naturally produced about 10x its current rate of co2. Yet for some reason climate alarmists keep coming up with one doomsday scenarios after another.
@hot mess I was wondering how sf6 work isn't it super heavy and heavier than air shouldn't it just sink to the ground level or fill in the low points. ANd not cause much of a change. Secondly is there is a test researcher can perform to see if the gas they are making if it is bad for the environment.
We focus on C02 but could you do a video on the other by products of fossil fuel burning. I know my gas boiler produces condensate that is acidic . That would not make good plant food . Lets look at the chemistry of refining and burning fuel and name all the products that are released and see what conclusion we arrive at.
Water vapour in the atmosphere increases when more water evaporates from land masses. This is from increased dams and farming irrigation. So increased water vapour means it gets warmer and it's not from co2.
Water vapour primarily follows temperature rises, which are primarily caused by natural cycles and increased CO2 levels.
Water Vapour is the main greenhouse gas. We have raised water vapour by 1.4 trillion tons, Molecule for molecule Water Vapour is 3x as efficient warner than CO2.
On a such controversial topic, I missed your references being explicitly mentioned.
Nice video guys and well done. Explaining climate change and its consequences is a matter of laws of nature, specifically quantum physics! Denial of it is either down to trivial politics or lack of knowledge! You have got a new subscriber! It might be of interest to you, a very solid source of information is the Potsdam Institute of Climate-Impact-Research and the German academy of science Leopoldina.
Huge underestimation of the role of water vapour. And complete lack of knowledge of the relevance of the ratio between sensible heat and latent heat.
CO2 isn't a green house gas gas, it is to heavy according to the periodic table. When you burn something CO2 is released into the atmosphere but when it cools down it start to fall down to the ground, it is one of the heaviest gases in the atmosphere.
I understood half of this 😖 this is advanced vocabulary for me.
I've attended a scientific talk about climate change. The speaker said that the comparison between the effect of CO2 and CH4 is difficult, maybe not even possible. The key difference is that the impact of CO2 scales with the totally emitted amount, while for CH4 the annual emissions have to be taken into consideration. I think it is because CH4 will decay in the atmosphere.
Can you comment on that?
If it is true, I think it is a very important difference to understand. It means that even very low CO2 emissions are not a sustainable condition, as the effect will get bigger with ongoing emissions. On the other hand, CH4 emissions would be allowed in order to keep a certain level of warming.
Also, cutting all CO2 emissions to zero would just mean that the current state is kept. Global warming would still be a thing and it would take millennia (probably that is still not enough) until the carbon is removed from the atmosphere by fossilization.
Cutting all CH4 emissions to zero would even improve the situation and reduce the degree of warming.
Anyway, I am not a climate scientist. And I would like to hear your comment on this.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the molar mass of CO2 and it is heavier than air (composed mainly of nitrogen, methane, oxygen - all have lower molar masses), therefore, how can CO2 end up in the higher atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas?
Thanks.
Weirdly enough this made me feel a lot better about water vapor. I didn't take into account the increased precipitation under pressure, so I was kind of panicking that more vapor meant more heat meant more vapor meant more heat... Still hot, but less mess. Thanks!
More water vapor does mean more heat. It's the major amplifier of greenhouse gas warming. But there is an amplification limit for each specific global temperature, which we unfortunately keep pushing upwards. It's not an endless vicious cycle if that's what was panicking you. It does cycle a few times as you suggest until it hits the limit. We set the limit.
Stopped driving a car and got a bike so I cut out C02 emissions. Don't eat cows much anymore to cut down on methane but I still can't stop drinking milk! Sorry about that.
It would be interesting to know which measures you guys are taking in your private life.
Being Vegeterian? Vegan?
Not flying? No Beef? No Car? No Packaging?
And adressing it as a more political topic would raise awareness as well.
Consumers can only do so much.
If the infrastructure isn't reformed, rural countries will always rely on cars. Transport, coal industry, fossil fuel industry, heating, COOLING (as it is getting warmer and warmer)
those are a little more advanced topics, but those are the measures to take. We need to talk about actual solutions - not just that we have to do something.
Don't question the carbon footprint of alarmists. They want to impoverish the world, just not them selves.
Humans! (self righteous sigh)
Hey, Joe. How many Olympic sized swimming pools is that? I didn't learn skyscrapers when I was a kid. Thanks.
There is a feed back loop with methane. The warmer it gets the more the permafrost melts and more methane is released.
Where can I get Hot Mess merch? I'd like to support the channel and have a t-shirt to wear when my "I Did A Science" shirt is in the wash!
we'll have a few options coming out soon!
I think you should change the plug for ReInventors a bit. "Trying edible plastic so you don't have to" 4:45 - the point is that we should want to eat the edible plastic to minimize plastic waste, so it would seem more appropriate to me if the plug reflected that. :)
the point was that they are trying it before it's really ready and good. right now it might be disgusting (still have to watch the video in the other tab) so we don't have to try it.
From watching the actual video it seemed pretty ready and good and seemed to be at the point where the only things lacking for wide use is approvals, few extra tests and making it more efficient. That is, however, only me guessing as they didn't address what was next, but Katie said it tasted good and I don't think she would have eaten it if it wasn't considered safe.
If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back those gasses that hurt you
Not CO2, not even close.
The gas that is doing the most is water vapour.
Methane = 4x CO2?? Always heard it was ~100x over first few years and ~20x over 100 years.
4x CO2 is probably about right if they mean methane's end effect on climate, given its 20x over 100 years warming potential and how much less of it there is,
Right. 28 is the global warming potential (GWP100) and 4 is the global temperature change potential (GTP100) of methane. Although I don't fully understand the difference.
According to their sources, p. 714: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
GWP100 keeps changing a bit. AR4 said 25 instead of 28.
Artux my guess is that 4x is the result of combining the 20x greater potential to the much less quantity of the gas there’s on the atmosphere.
Methane also released from melting permafrost. Correlation is not causation.
How do we control these gases
Incorrect! CO2 in almost all cases follows global temperatures. Also, we are in a CO2 draught that is limiting plant growth -- we need more, much more, like at least 1500 ppm though plants would appreciate up to 5000 ppm. It has been estimated that when the Earth was at its highest peak of productivity, CO2 was at 2800 ppm. You also didn't mention that CO2 has its limits too. The Earth is covered by 70% water that absorbs great quantities as the Earth cools and releases great quantities as the Earth warms, typically lagging the Earth's temperature by 800 years, but doesn't follow temperature in lockstep due to the many other processes that affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no set point for H20 in the atmosphere. It also increases and decreases with Earth's temperature represented by the local dew point. Also, which you failed to mention, is that H2O can form clouds, dramatically reversing it's warming effect by reflecting solar energy away from the Earth! Of the many processes that affect Earth's climate, only one has predictive value, and that is solar radiation which changes due to Earth's tilt, wobble, and orbit on orders of millenia (Milankovitch Cycles) and on at least 2 Sun activity cycles. Every other climate parameter that I can find is driven by the solar energy arriving on Earth, though weather is still chaotic.
Can I ask a question I’ve been trying to uncover to better understand this whole thing? The Ice Cores extracted by Petit et al group showed that CO2 was a lagging indicator behind temp. CO2 trailed the temp variation and this was observed but NOT addressed in the discussion. It suggest that SOMETHING was causing the temp to increase or decrease and temp variation was causing CO2 to follow. Can someone please help me understand this? Has it been addressed?
The solubility of co2 in water falls with temperature so if you warm the water co2 is released and vice verse.That is why atmospheric co2 must increase if you warm the planet
ajspades19 thank you.
Some suggested ways we can change our behaviours would really help me from sinking further into sadness that it's come to this.
everyone agrees on the things that make a difference, but the actual priority depends on individual circumstances. do not waste food, cut down single use plastic, then cut down recyclable plastic (recycling is very energy expensive), reuse everything upto the limit of its life and then upcycle it - anything to keep it out of landfill. reduce burning fossil fuels, reduce overall energy use (eg better insulation for homes, using public transport/carpooling). beyond that, the number of things and the amount of benefits are so variable it's hard to say. substituting beef with pork for example, buying seasonal local produce, reducing consumption in general (clothes, electronics, furniture), etc.
One of the ways climate gets confusing is with GHGe (green house case equivalents). While overall heating factor is important, how long something exists is also important. methane, for instance, breaks down in the atmosphere very quickly compared to CO2 which stays around for perhaps 10s of thousands of years. This warming discount rate is the subject of a lot of scientific arglebargle, but results in near universal opinion CO2 first, the then deal with the others.
No argument, FYI. There just aren’t enough methane molecules to add up to a major effect despite its higher warming potential, which is usually stated to be 28 times more than CO2 over a century. But at present concentration levels, methane would need to have a 200+ warming potential to equal CO2 in overall warming.
Where is sulphur hexafluoride used? electrical insulator for power generation, yes like wind turbines (strange you did not mention that)
No mention that water vapour (upper atmosphere) can create hydroxyl radicals that break down methane (strange you did not mention that)
No mention of Milankovitch cycle either (strange you did not mention that)
What is the other 30% that causes warming?
We say no to pay to win as he said methane, also N2O (nitrous oxide) and some flourocarbons.
Check Wikipedia if you want to know more about it :D
J.C.Maxwell no I'm talking about when he said 70% of warming caused by humans. I was thinking volcanoes and stuff like that.
Volcanic eruptions actually produce a net cooling effect in the short term, so they aren't the cause. Likely the remaining 30% is due to CH4 and N20 GHGs along with fluctuations in other cycles like ENSO and albedo changes.
We say no to pay to win The other 30% is caused by the earth's orbit, the solar activity, El Niño (google if you want to see what it is) and other things that I don't remember
Methane and chloro-fluoro-carbons. (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. Together these anthropogenic forcings account for more than 100% of the warming. However, there are negative anthropogenic forcings (aerosols and land use) that cool the planet.
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/
Quantity is a quality all of its own.
I’m curious how the potency of greenhouse gasses is measured. I heard halon is very potent at trapping heat.
Depends on the type of halon, there are 4 types with Global Warming Potential Values from 376 to 6,290. See next link.
www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf
The Values depend on the following factors:
- the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species
- the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths
- the atmospheric lifetime of the species
Some sort of complicated weighting formula is applied to these factors.
I in progress bress is gonna be Desperate
Great video! Thank you for sharing. You said at the end it the video that it's not too late but I was wondering if you have any science to back that up? It seems like my generation will have to bear the responsibilities of parents and grandparents decisions.
when is the time?
But sf6 is denser than air so it wouldn't rise into the atmosphere?
Correct me if i'm wrong
It's important for people to know that Earth's avg temp just before the industrial revolution was historically quite low. For instance sometimes the Thames river froze in winter as did canals in Holland...that never used to happen. In the time of the Roman Empire all of Europe was warmer and N. Africa had good farming near the Med Sea. Even earlier the Egyptian Empires or Dynasties rose to wealth and power via agriculture, cuz sufficient rain would fall in her lands due to warmer Earth avg temp. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere back then but it did not lead to runaway warming. Most likely a slow reduction in solar output beginning around the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire lead to an increasingly worse environment for humans, turning N. Africa dry, the northern half of Europe colder and droughts became more common in a variety of places, for instance India.
For a couple decades now precipitation has been increasing in many regions. For an interesting example, consider India. The cold period that dried N. Africa also dried a lot of India. In India which has clay soil the drying land resulted in too much water runoff during monsoons. For a couple decades now India has taken to recharging the water table in many places by digging lots o ponds and similar tech which is leading to more agriculture , flora and fauna, and thus speeding up the recovery of the land which would happen anyway with a warmer avg temp of Earth. Agri output of India has greatly increased over last 2-32 decades and it was in 2005 that she no longer had to import grains, lefumes and pulses. The increase in agri ouput is due to better farming tech as well as more atmospheric CO2.
Similar tech of speeding rejuvenation of arid land is being done in China. None of this rejuvenation would be long lasting or significant if avg temp of Earth and CO2 did not rise back to what it had been in the past.
The video is all sorts of great, but I really miss any call to action. I understand that it might upset some people even to the point where some of those who now clicked the "like" button could click "dislike" just for "being told what to do".
But do we have any other choice but to make some people unhappy? Fly planes less, use public transportation or bikes more and car less, eat less meat and other animal products and best, ditch them entirely. Consume less needless crap. Protest environmentally unfriendly businesses and policies. Encourage your friends to take the same actions.
let me enhance the list: buy only the stuffs you needed (you don't need to buy t-shirts for each color there is), if the old device / equipment still functioning don't buy the newest one.
Your desire to be recognized by others should not make you into an addict consumer. No, you don't need more than one branded handbag/shoes/watch/phone, and you also absolutely don't need a supercar or any other luxury items.
Don't buy to many food to stock, the more item there is in yer refrigerator, the more energy it requires to cool it.
Don't use heaters / air conditioner unnecessarily. Design a house that can naturally regulate air temperature (I'm not talking bout the furnace of course), see ancient house designs that has this function.
me still being confused lol
If the Earth would only be -18° without greenhouse gases, wouldn't that mean our planet isn't actually in the Goldilocks zone?
A lot of our perception of heat comes from the vapor in the air. 90 degrees feels hotter down south than it does in the north because it's a lot more humid in the south and dryer in the north. You just said more heat sources means more water vapor in the air, therefore more heat is going to be retained by the water in the atmosphere. 89% of electricity is produced by steam electric plants. Which means thats another heat source. Also we now have over 5 million cell towers putting out microwaves at 120kwd each. Which is 600 million kwd of microwave energy being absorbed by the water (atmosphere) everyday. A 1kw microwave can boil one cup of water every 2 minutes, which comes out to be 45 gallons of water to a boil everyday (24hrs). From cell tower microwaves alone thats 1,125 million gallons of water brought to a boil everyday. Thats a lot a heat that our atmosphere need to dissipate. The number of radio towers has gone up with temps too. Co2 isnt the only thing that we started doing to our environment. The radio wave graph looks the same as the Co2 graph. The percentage of Co2 in our atmosphere is 0.04%. Nothing compared to percentage of water.
Rice paddies release an enormous amount of methane gas as well, but lets blame it all on cow farts
Funny how no body lives at the poles but hundreds of millions live in the hottest places.
Duh, water vapor and that’s been known for decades, the neat thing is that water vapor is replenished every second across the globe.
Why is it that oil refineries vent methane up smokestacks and burn it, instead of condensing it and selling it?
Usually oil refineries want to capture all the ingredients that come from oil in their cracking units, from naphtha to asphalt. What makes you think they deliberately vent methane? I imagine the authorities would be after them quickly if they did.
Quite unscientific!
bruh
-.-
Except.... there isn't any causation of temperature rise by CO2 rise.
I'll bet the last near two decades not warming up must be a real pain in the butt for you.
By tripling carbon dioxide levels over a base of three hundred ppm the rise in heat would be?
Approximately 0.004 degrees Celsius. If you triple it again the rise would be 0.00003 degrees.
Imagine trying to get a suntan under a massive shade screen with 99.96% blockout. Adding more c02 or most other ghg would change it to 99.90% blockout
You missed water vapor.
what of Nitrous Oxide?
guy misses one important point at the start... you add more water vapour temperature goes up... allowing more water vapour.... you dont need anything else to heat up the atmosphere... water vapour is a feedback loop onto itself
I literally just bought old Nike air max shoes 💀💀💀
Well, I suppose they are not produced anymore so by purchasing something no longer produced you are in fact keeping it from ending up in a landfill just a little bit longer. You are actually doing the environment a service by giving them a longer life.
Using a cost benefit analysis, should we aim to reduce/capture SF6 or methane rather than capture co2?
Could we please ban SF6, like we did with clouroflourocarbons?
The HFC in Memorex canisters is 90000X as powerful as CO2 and 3X as powerful as SF6.
What about the theory that says we can only emit as much C02 as the biosphere can handle? Meaning, If we were truly killing the planet with CO2. We should be able to Identify and record lower species extinction as a marker for the toxicity we are creating in the environment.
…how long does water vapor persist when injected @30 k ft? Doesn’t precipitate out like ground emissions!
Soory to say....CO2 went up when temperature went up not the other way around. on the last 800 000 years temperature was temperature that regulates the CO2 on the atmosphere.
Your never going to win.... the population is being brainwashed. Greed and control is what its all about.
Yes the petit et al study of the ice cores showed this for the past when new carbon from fossils was NOT introduced into the atmosphere so something melting was causing the carbon dioxide to increase. You’re right. Historical evidence suggested that CO2 was a lagging indicator of natural (maybe solar cycle?) related temp variation.
I think what he have trouble answering and explaining is after humans started burning more fossil fuels and after methane production from agricultural emissions went up, have we also accelerated the Natural climate variation or have we somehow taken it off natural course. Believe me. I’m a skeptic like you but I’m also open minded to understand. On both sides of this debate there is lots of exploitation so it’s really hard for me to separate the noise from the signal.
@@stephenzungi6140 There is no such thing as 'new carbon'. It all finds it's origin on this planet. Add to that the fact that these fossil fuel carbons have been released all along, in the form of surface oil and coalfires, massive releases of methane from seas, lakes and swamps and far higher volcanic activity then we are used to, in the last couple of millenia.
So you will just deny facts forever right ? You really think that all human wastes and production haven't caused the CO2 levels to rise ? pathetic...
@@iljastepanov2627 Pathetic are the ones believing the 'facts' that come from the government funded research and 'scientific' findings within them. Even the IPCC has had to admit that, whatever we do, CO2 levels will not fall by any significant matter.
On top of that CO2 is NOT a dangerous gas. As a matter of fact, our planet momentarily is on the brink of a dangerous LOW level of atmospheric CO2. All live would do much better if it'd be in the 450 to 500ppm bracket, instead of the high threehundreths to low fourhundreths that it is right now.
Anyhow, you obviously don't know anything about physics for you just swallow what these fake scientist feed you without question.
Hey, you said that mathane is x4 times stronger, but latest research shows that it is actually x84. 3:18
The car industry is trying to make diesel greener but no mention of Nox emissions here.
electric cars >>>
What about another video on fourth generation nuclear reactors
There won't be much to say. None are in commercial use yet. These fission reactors are still an area of active research. Pretty much all the nuclear options (fission and fusion) are being under-priced by renewables now so the research might never be completed.
Thought automotive exhaust was the worst.
Would it be a good idea to add more water vapor to air so that it rains more?
Would have to be by the sun still. Humanity produces less than a thousand amount in total of energi that comes from the sun. Boiling water takes massive energi
I've read so many wildly divergent estimates on how much more potent methane is than CO2. Here, you say it's 4x, I've read that it's 28x-34x over 100 years and even 130x over 10 years. Why is this statistic so different from source to source?
Just want to say that I'm against using skyscrapers as units of measurement for ... anything...
nice channel
But how to beat them????
Nothing about that in video...
At 3:30, you say that when there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperatures were higher, but I heard somebody, maybe in a TED talk, saying that in the past, the rise of CO2 came AFTER the rise of temperature, not BEFORE like today, so there is probably something really important we're still missing, because we didn't understand that phenomena at the time i heard that.
I didn't mean to denie global warming, i wanted to point out the possibility of an even worse chain reaction than we expected, because studies of the past have shown that a warm earth triggers CO2 release in the atmosphere. And today the CO2 is warming the atmosphere, so there might be more to come from an unknown phenomena.
I looked for it when i wrote the comment but i couldn't find it unfortunately. The guy who said that didn't denie at all that CO2 affected temperature, but earth used to heat up, then CO2 was produced which warmed it up more, but somehow the extra degrees made something release more CO2 than usual. Today the CO2 is coming before the heat, and we can expect to have a second wave of CO2 that might warm the planet even more.
I finally found the talk i was referring to:
www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change#t-544383
While looking for it, I also read that people think "CO2 comes after warming so CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere". Nice reflection ahah. As the article linked below points out "Sometimes a house gets warmer even when the central heating is turned off. Does this prove that its central heating does not work? Of course not. Perhaps it’s a hot day outside, or the oven’s been left on for hours.".
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
I didn't know people were actually thinking that way, and i understand why you were worried about me :D.
Have a nice day!
Why not add as much CW-7 to the upper layers of the atmosphere as there is CO2.
Thank you for this!