Some sidenotes I didn't get to add in the video: -Tundra permafrost melting is definitely a contributor too but from the data in the paper it seems the wetlands are adding larger amounts in comparison. -Increase in farmland in countries like Brazil is a contributor too but it's not growing large enough compared to the data -This is the first study majorly addressing this, so it's still not clear what's happening -The methane data seems to be very robust and was reported in other papers using other observations so the jump is real -Methane correlates with solar activity as well (check out Neptune video below) and the Sun is becoming super active, so it may skew the data downward...suggesting the levels may go up even higher after 2026...maybe -CO2 is still an issue too and will be making things even worse. It's also what probably started all of this. Internal studies conducted by oil companies in the 1960s/1970s literally predicted all of this. They just cared about profits more: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 Neptune and methane: th-cam.com/video/60z6fpFehyA/w-d-xo.html
Things like this are why I've always preferred the term "climate change" to "global warming." We're still learning so much about these dynamic systems and cycles. Big shifts and events happen, but we definitely don't want to be pushing them with our pollution. Thanks for the notes! 💜🌏🌌
Amazing as always, Anton. Thank you for all the work you have done for science communication over the years. It is really good to hear this topic discussed without the politics
Fascinating! I was going to ask whether the 11 year solar cycle and increase in activity might have anything to do with methane amounts, but I didn't think that would be possible. How does light, solar winds, radiation and temperature influence methane levels?
As the person who spent my whole childhood in permafrost above arctic circle where winter in 90s was 10 months a year, to today's situation with winter barely lasting 6 months and summers peaking at 30 degrees celsius this year, which is a historical record for permafrost. I can tell that tundra's melt is definitely causing methane to be released from all of the composted organics stored for thousands of years in the Earth's "Fridge".
@@xtremelemon8612 do we know for a fact humans didn't cause anything? I mean people always mention plastics, but how do we know they're actual breakdown rate in nature when it's only be really studied in the lab, and in my lifetime alone there has been multiple findings of animals and bacteria using plastics to their advantage, increasing their decay, hence all the micro plastics about.
@@jbarnhart2774 yes I think it is quite sure for few reasons: until 100k years ago I dont even know if the population of our specie was a 7 or even 6 digit number, I mean during the Younger Dryas human population world wide estimates were like around 10 million people, who were just peacufully hunting-gathering, which is nothing. In fact if you look at the Co2 ice core data its flat like a pancake so theres the proof I guess. And if you consider that at some point in time Earth was full of Dinos or huge animals emitting I dont know how much more methane and co2 than all the biomass existing today combined, and yet there was never a runaway greenhouse effect anyway.
The article Anton is covering does mention/imply permafrost melt in the north, it's just not as much of a factor right now - "wetlands in Africa (15 Tg/yr) and Canada and Alaska (4.8 Tg/yr)".But the permafrost melt would be a great topic to cover Anton, please discuss the clathrate gun in your usual entertaining and interesting style!
It hasn't been adequately measured. If you look into it yourself you'll see researchers want to do more measurements and analyze more area. Lack of funding prevents the data coming out faster. There's entire frozen lakes with trapped methane that haven't been properly analyzed and added to the data models. Don't rely on youtubers to tell you everything, you can actually search things yourself and find the truth without someone telling you everything they want you to believe. He makes money by you believing in him. Do your proper research and stop being tricked.
i've been hearing so often for years about the methane being released by the melting of the permafrost in high latitudes, tundra etc, that it's odd for it not to be mentioned here. scientists have been fretting loudly about specifically that for decades.
@@kavalogueIn the paper Anton linked, they do say that “additional source input during major terminations as the retreat of the northern ice sheet allowed higher methane emissions from extending periglacial wetlands”. But then they bang on about tropical wetlands being a possibly underestimated source. Personally it seems more likely that sources like the ancient peat bogs that are only now beginning to thaw in large areas of Russia are to blame, and that we’re now in the feedback loop phase, but who knows? Maybe these tropical wetlands are emitting even more…
"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.
@@Nightdare marshland that was rich in fish, birds and reeds with the mainland centre being on Dogger Island. Probably explains why the English have such a high genetic influence by the Dutch. The Norwegian landslide was just the final nail in the coffin, there had been continual sea rises and multiple flood events before that with increased earthquake activity caused by glacial rebound.
@@BogusDudeGW You are correct that the ocean level has been rising for the past 13000-12000 years So if all else remained the same, it would have been inevitable ...it might not have been the final nail if sediment from mainland rivers and/or ocean currents could have filled the area at a higher rate than the levels increreased But that's useless theorization after the fact
Just hit that part of the video and was just about to post something similar! There's just something irresistibly hilarious about someone with his brilliance AND accent saying "hanky-panky!"
I've been holding my gas for weeks now in support of the fart crisis we are in. Hopefully, by not farting for a month, I can help save a cow from being killed by our government.
Anton, Just a casual observation; I’m 68 years old and have seen many lakes and ponds in the Adirondacks (in upstate N Y) start to look more like “bogs”. Places that had liquid water in abundance when we were children have transitioned to near bogs. Big lakes, such as the Champlain and lake George, are mot becoming bogs anytime soon, but I wonder if these bogs full of decaying plant matter are producing large amounts of methane??? It would seem to me to make sense.Small lakes and ponds that we noticed as kids (viewed from the car while on vacation),are now to the point where you can almost walk across them! Food for thought??? I find your posts most intriguing and so interesting-science is a blast!
Sir I don’t know about your area but how is the population there. In my state of Texas, ours has tripled in your lifetime. The water source your seeing may not be on the tap but I would bet money that somewhere down the line it is. In my area we have lowered the water table by a hundred foot in the last 10 years. A lot of it the pump a mile down 500 barrels at a time since you can’t use salt water for fracking or acidizing. Once it’s there it is recoverable. At least not in any form of use.
I wonder if it could be related to human activity. First, humans had been draining or otherwise destroying a lot of wetlands over the last hundred years (for crops, pasture, removing hazards to people and livestock, control mosquitoes, housing, or reducing beaver that can create some wetlands). I think of this every time I see that Lassie meme about thinking quicksand would be a a bigger problem growing up. However, recent decades have seen green initiatives to restore wetlands but agricultural runoff of topsoil and fertilizer might cause eutrophication as well. I've noticed more trees than usual have been blown down onto the road in a certain area in recent years and I realized most of those trees are about the same age because many were planted at the same time because the area was restored to parkland several decades ago.
I don't know about your area but at least in North Carolina there was a program to eradicate beavers because after they moved back into those areas of North Carolina (presumably after being trapped to extinction locally) their population rapidly increased until were inundating so much low lying forest land.
What I love about this channel is the topics are the kinds of things I’m always interested in. Anton you do a great job of bringing these ideas and studies to us.
we're not crazy the mainstream just doesn't report known facts. We're colder than have been for 450my. Last Act of Permian Age until few mya planet was ice free. Our biomass is equal to Cambrian Age... as in net zero biomass to show for 550my
We're certainly not in a global warming phase, not at all. If you look at the Greenland ice core sample graphs, they show earth's temperature for the last million years, and most of it was WAY higher than it is now. We also have to keep in mind that the habitable zone constantly changes on earth. Arctic areas used to be lush and green. So when we measure changes in climate, we can't just say "Oh it's hotter here where people live now, so it's man made climate change". No. Forests have turned to deserts, and deserts have turned to forests. The metrics being pushed by climate alarmism are completely cherry picked and distorted from reality. And the worst part is it could doom the entire species, because if we start pushing for "renewable" power sources like solar, in a world that is turned into an ice ball, there's no way we'll generate enough energy to save ourselves. The deep freeze will hit and these "green" energy sources will become virtually useless, because you're not running solar panels in a world full of ice and deep snow. Any solar fields would become quickly useless as they would be buried in snow, and not receive much sunlight even if they weren't buried, because of all the cloud cover from ice particles in the atmosphere. The only thing that can save us at the point is either nuclear power or fossil fuels. Some people think fusion will be the answer, but it won't, because we don't have enough of the required elements on earth to actually make them work....and never will. So unless we have some kind of anti matter breakthrough where we can synthesize it, fossil fuels are going to be the most useful for a freezing world. There are wave based generators that show promise, but those go out the window in a frozen world, because if the surface of the ocean is frozen, you no longer have waves nor access to run these generators, and you would need a LOT of them.
@@peoplez129 You are more right than wrong. Our Ice age was here a million years ago, technically it is 30my old but if we mean more problems than just one pole covered in ice and more central continents covered and chilled then Ice Age is more like 3my 15mya we had a nice warm spell that helped apes make it as far as the Alps! Before that the Eocene was recovering from the Dinosaur killer impact but like 60mya to 33mya was 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. I think I want that world so I have to prefer we stay with fossil fuels? For now. Close to 250my from when out Ice Age starts to when the last one before it ended... as the Permian became the Triassic it warmed, maybe too quickly. Permian-Triassic-Extinction-Event I would only read about that if you like horror moves. 90% of creatures did not survive. Imagine we had cockroaches and 4 types of weeds and pigeons became cannibals to survive and that's the spirit of that time. Mother Earth is happier when warm. That seems fair to say
@@tommarsal3356 more like when getting your azz beat in an alley there's a pause of being kicked. Bringing in a guy with fresh leg muscles. We're in an 'interglacial' more widely known as the Holocene. It is just a pause can't post pictures here but will do a vid with all the charts soon I hope the Ice Ages' ratio of years of frozen hellscape compared to number of years in these interglacials and even inside our recorded history of Egypt and Greece, the 'little ice ages' seem to be getting colder. Put those together... I'm apparently the only one following those lines out. I think we were in for a Mass Extinction likes of which haven't seen in 260my. Burning all the oil, by accident was like pulling 3 Aces. As per the video by 'terminating' the Ice Age I think they mean more the next glaciation not the pattern of glaciation... if that makes sense? So bought 10-50k years not likely many of which colder than now. I'd rather go whole hog and do what it takes to just end ice on earth for millions of years. Others with this Carbon Retrieval and Storage business will never want to close down their facilities and let their landlord/mortgage holder evict them, right? It can never get low carbon and cold enough for them. Plants shut down at 150ppm no flowering no nutting, coat themselves in wav and try to wait for Earth to heal itself with more carbon. Getting ahead of myself. Suggest check out the 'Eemian Period' I think that was last time before our Holocene and was even a few degrees warmer than now. Penetration of modern humans into Europe but ice pushed us back more than Neanderthals. 115ky ago I've been looking at periods back further than 'just' few million years so weaker on 'near history' Eemian did see tree forest belt extend deep into West Texas and that was a clue I needed.
I was lucky to meet Euan Nisbet, the main author of the paper. A very nice gentleman coming originally from South Africa. Not to mention, he is the greatest authority of atmospheric methane we have.
I want a video on how you run this channel. You just burst into my phone every day with zero sponsors or ads. You comprehensively simplify a recent topic of discussion that goes more in depth than what high school would ever get into. And then you leave to go do it all again the next day. How do you do it? How are you so awesome??
Some people really love doing research. I've heard "It's my happy place" from somebody once. Anton once said that he started the channel when his mom passed away and that he also returned relatively quickly after the passing of his son because making those videos actually makes him feel better. But, yes, getting some insight into his work process would really be interesting.
It's not hard to go in "more depth" than "high school". Considering that the majority of high schools are very inefficient at teaching anything and have horribly low educational standards.
@@ImmortalLemon Yes, very sadly he and his wife lost their second born in his infancy due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome last year. Anton was gone for about two weeks but then returned and started a fundraiser in the name of his son to benefit families in Ukraine. The fundraiser went on for several months (maybe a year) but has been closed by now.
So nice to see you smile at the end Anton. Your channel is amazing, better than school teachings. Thank you for all your hard work and hours of research to put each discovery together.👏🏼😄💕
In case you haven't been back since you left your comment, Anton has added more in his pinned comment. He addressed that, my friend. Have a good weekend😃
This is a great episode, now you got my Sub! You hit exactly some of my thoughts and ideas, but more important you gave us things to think about. Thanks for your passion and open thoughts
Thank you for making this vid, it’s a complicated issue and not many are willing to to state the conclusion “ we just don’t know” thank you, it is very brave, it shows your dedication to science. Thank you
@@thomasprislacjr.4063 I understand what he is saying, but is still a sensitive topic to discuss because there is a lot of political polarization on the topic. He did a good job of not letting that into the science.
@thomasprislacjr.4063 Humans have some impact on climate change. Exactly how much is not known and can not be known. If someone think they have the answers, what's the % of change humans have contributed?
Simply put, they pay scientists to lie for them and promote a false narrative. The evidence is clear if you scrutinize the reports and do a little research.
@thomasprislacjr.4063 the point is you have been subject to actual violence for questioning anything related to "climate change" and let's be real, when you can't question something it's no longer science and is only propaganda. Science has been dead in many categories for some time due to cultural and political forces from all sides (but 1 direction more than others yes, but it should be condemned in any form)
What a great vid, I was expecting something really depressing and alarmist, and while we have good reasons to be worried, this video was as factual, fascinating and informative as usual. Great job Anton!
I can’t stand climate alarmism and politics when it comes to the weather. George Carlin said it best: “We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. “
@thefamily512 exactly, Carlen said it best. Alarmists are concerned about cities on the coast that will inevitably end up underwater anyways. There isn’t a single square mile on this planet that is guaranteed to be habitable forever. People aren’t concerned about the Earth. They are concerned that one day they will be brought back to the Stone Age where there isn’t a McDonalds or Starbucks on every corner and water no longer comes in a bottle. Basically, they are worried about their privileged status. Lmfao
And the people telling me that I’m destroying the planet are the same type that live in cities, needs everything truck driven to them, use plastics all day, support big companies that are responsible for a lot of climate damage, and think they are fighting climate change by just blaming people online that they are destroying the planet, that’s all they think they have to do, while they blame me for climate change while I live in a small town, hunt and grow my own food, do beach cleanups, hunt invasive species and don’t consume from these corporations, it will never actually change because the very people complaining are the ones doing the least
I appreciate how observations are presented with facts. The facts are "not really sure" which lends to this gentleman's credibility. This type of reality is really lacking today. Thank you for the information it is appreciated!!!
Whenever i hear or read that CO2 lvl in the atmospehere is playing a part in climate change my doubt of the content credibility is starting to fall. It’s been debunked by various studies, that co2 lvls have no direct correlation with warming or cooling. Also they can’t even tell whats the weather going to be like in my region 3 days from now just guessing someshit and most if time it’s unaccurate. But they can tell for sure whats going to happen years into the future…
No, it's not lacking, usually it's avoided in public presentations. The scientists are not sure of anything and, as a consequence, the engineers are not sure of anything, or, to put it in a Murphy-esque way, we're sure always something will break or something is wrong in our maths. That's why we (I'm a physicist) are using statistics and sigma, that's why the engineers are building safety systems and redundant systems which make the final product many times more expensive. The problem is the public doesn't understand that incertitude is a built-in feature of science and there's no way to express our opinions to the untrained public without looking like idiots. And, unfortunately, this is where the ball is taken and played by people who are very certain in their truth: the politicians (and, at large, by the people who have any kind of agenda, propaganda creators included). Remember the SARS-CoV-2 debacle?
@@user-js7ev3fy5n I don't want you to even think about it because I consider it a stupid idea. There are more likely explanations than that. And I'm Romanian, I know how propaganda works and what are the limits of putting a lid on information. But maybe I'm an oligarch and a rich guy and I don't know it. Somebody wake me! A 100k $ shower would just be fine for starters!
There are several hypothesis that were worth to investigate: 1-Dam construction is known to flood big regions which cause methane emissions. 2- positive feedback loop - as temperature increases, it shifts the solubility of methane in water and their part start to emit.
The solubility of methane and water is extremely low. It has zero dipole moment, and extremely low polarizability. I haven't done the quantitative evaluation, but I suspect the effect to be negligible in comparison with highly soluble CO2. You are correct however that solubility of gases generally decreases with temperature.
Just like CO2. It's the natural warming that increases the CO2 rate in the atmosphere. As proven by the measures in ice carrots. The analyses show that in prehistory, the increase of CO2 rates always FOLLOWS the increase of temperatures. Not the opposite.
Great video. Very sad that politicians are trying to blame the poor / middle class, workers and farmers for climate change but this video shows us the bigger threat isn't human emissions..
It isn't a threat humans are going to have to change their way of life no matter what because even if we are the absolute main factor of this issue even if the issue didn't exist the climate would still change even if it was over a longer period it still means that Humanity has to change its agricultural ways it's how it is the habitat isn't just going to stay the same forever Everything Will Change in our way of life will change quickly or slowly it doesn't matter
20,000 years ago sea level was 400 feet lower than today. Humans had zero to do with that rise. We are at a naturally caused end of ice in the north, but there are those who would blame humans for the whimping end of ice in the north. This end was already in process.
Imagine how life was before the ice age. Needed a lot of water to be retained in the atmosphere to do that. My understanding is that life was not much different from now and eventually we will hit another long term cycle of going into another ice age.
@@AFellowCyberman Bull. There are temperature records in the ice cores which show rapid changes in temperature literally over a decade. These occurred at a time when no human civilization existed on the planet. Quit making up stuff.
If we ignore the effects of human-caused climate change, the Milankovitch cycles predict that the Earth should be cooling right now. This is because the Earth's tilt is decreasing, which means that the seasons will become less extreme and the Northern Hemisphere will receive less sunlight in the summer.
In northern Australia, coastal north Queensland, the folk history of the Aboriginal people living there, clearly recalls the time sea level rapidly rose between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago. At times the sea level was rising at such a pace, it is believed those living in littoral areas would have had to move camp every year to avoid the inundation.
there's some good examples off the coast of India of submerged cities that could be upto 30,000 year old. Similarly around the Black Sea you can see how the settlements were pushed further and further inland as the sea expanded. The English channel being carved out between 5,000 and 10,000BC and the shear weight of the water along with glacial rebound causing the land, including Doggerisland, to be pushed further and further down into the mantle, which in itself causes further molten displacement. I find it interesting to look at tectonic plate maps to see the effects of our ever expanding planet, to think its only took a couple of hundred million years for the Atlantic to form, so many countries and continents clearly splitting up and breaking apart.
Everywhere you go all over the world, there are legends of a great flood. The only way that could occur is if the ice rapidly melted pretty much affecting the entire globe. The cause of the rapid melting? Well I'll leave that to the likes of Graham Hancock to argue over.
There is evidence on the seafloor of the Persian gulf of settlements showing it was inhabited. The people fled to the current coasts. These may have been the ancestors of the Akkadians who settled the Tigris-Euphrates valleys.
John Clauser, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, became the second Nobel laureate last month to sign the document with 1,607 other scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis.
Only humans will build against the ocean and get mad at other humans when the ocean does what the ocean has always done. It's like being surprised the active volcano you built your house beside burns your house down.
@@tripplefives1402 But the people in tornado alley don't blame the human race for tornadoes. We just kinda take it and unite to rebuild. It's more being devastated than angry.
@@tripplefives1402not really. Not all have disasters. Strong weather events at most. Or a tiny tremor perhaps. But nothing else. The U.K. and certain areas of Colombia for example.
Finally someone with common sense who can understand that the world isn’t a perfect oyster for our lives, we just happen to be able to exist on it because it’s not as hostile AS IT COULD BE.
Anton, this was the single best and most comprehensive perspective I've seen so far. I truly enjoyed the full picture and historical context without the political drama or ulterior motive. Excellent work!
No political drama ? Yet you’re bringing up political drama and title is tryna give humans a pass on all the pollution we cause. Yeah this is all natural occurring nothing to see here. Studies sponsored by big oil and gas execs
Seriously? With all that is out there? This was the single best and most comprehensive perspective? Oh right You like this because he didn't explicitly say it had anything to do with billions upon billions of people over the last two centuries extracting hundreds of billions of tons of carbon from beneath the Earth's crust and burning it into our paper than atmosphere. Although if you listen closely he did actually mention that in one brief sentence as being in the cause of the recent rapid warming that has triggered these methane releases. Climate scientists have been saying this for a while now and that tipping into these methane releases is only going to exacerbate the serious problem we're facing as a civilization (If not also a species).
Methane hydrate is found as a ice-like deposit in ocean waters within a range of pressure (depth) and temperatures. It seems plausible to me that even small increases in temperature at these depths could result in the release of significant amount of methane from this reservoir. It would also be hard to estimate the amount that is released given the difficulty in determining temperatures over the extended range methane hydrate is found.
Here's the comment I was looking for. There's an astronomical amount of it in the ocean; the last I heard anyone raise this issue was years ago in reference to mass extinction events, since if ocean deposits thaw the air would become unbreathable.
Methane hydrates on the out continental shelf are indeed some of the largest methane deposits on our planet. They are also subject to becoming unstable if their ambient temperature were to rise to a level where they would subliminate into a gas. However, you are mistaken in that we don't know what the current temperatures of the continental shelves are and that we do not know what temperatures that gas hydrates would sublimate. Anyone that has ever looked at a ternary eutectic diagram for the ocean geochemistry can see exactly what would be required. Suffice it for the moment to say we have not reached that point for sublimation as of now. The entire question of modeling is subject to chaotic evolution of the physical systems and therefore not readily possible to create a reliable model based on available data, What we do know is that, as this video spoke of and documented, the planet is in an usually cool state right now compared to long term and holocene paleo climates. We should expect to see warming regardless of anthropamorphic cause or not. It is totally arbitrary to pick an "ideal" temperature target simply based what it was 20, 50, 100, 500, or even a few 1000 years ago. Further, what to do about warming (regardless of a chosen target) is a policy question, with available choices depending on current and future technologies. Remember, that just 50 years ago, it was claimed that the earth had reached its population limit and was about to see the entire ecosystem collapse from over population. That was a population of a bit under 4 billion. Now we have double that and now we produce enough food to actually feed everyone (if it was efficiently distributed). Trying to solve tomorrows problems with today's technology is costly and largely doomed to failure. It would be like trying to build bigger jet planes to get to the moon instead of developing rocketry. Or like 1920s food production trying to address global food shortages based on projected population growth. This is why we need much more policy debates on climate change rather that arguing about if it is happening and why. It does not matter why, and even if everyone agrees it is happening (afterall, by definition climate is always changing over time .. static climates are dead planets like venus and mars). What matters is what policy choices wse make to deal with it. Do we embrace technologic programs to adapt for the change. I happen to think that is more practical and cheaper than trying to stop the change from happening (we can't in the long turn due to geologic and geochemical forces). Maybe I am wrong .,. but that is exactly why policy debate on how to deal with it is needed even though it is basically totally ignored by climate fanatics who insist we must stop change from happening, Remember, the most abundant atmospheric green house gas is never even spoken about .. it is (according to NASA and all other scientific sources) .... WATER VAPOR. Yep, water vapor dwarfs all other atmospheric green house gases. Yet you never hear anyone advocating to control water vapor!
There is a LOT of politics involved with the methane released from permafrost melting. PBS did a special on a huge sinkhole opening in eastern Siberia, and talked about all the gases escaping, and then inexplicably ignored the fact that there wasn't just one sinkhole releasing gases, but literally thousands. Likewise, there is a huge excavation going on in Alaska, and there's a lot of melting going in, even deep in the tunnels (the air is warm enough to cause melting). A hundred thousand years ago, most of Siberia was marsh and wetlands -- the SAME environment as in Africa. The fact that PBS Nova would document one huge sinkhole, and subtly imply it was an isolated incident is terribly disturbing, for when science is "bent" to political pressures, it makes it hard to make good decisions. There are hints, too, that during colder periods some methane pockets sank into the North Pacific, and as the ocean warms, the pockets of gas will get released, adding to the warming.
Check out a place called Doggerland. Its not a trap i promise, however baity the name seems lol Fisherman on the North sea trawlers often dredge up old mammoth bones, and wooden artefacts from the sea bed...
You should do a video on geoengineering and the recent realization that the bill lowering the use of sulfur enriched fuels in ocean liners has caused us to cool the planet unintentionally due to having shiny clouds basically
Great info, thanks. Satellite images of methane clouds over melting tundra (perma frost)are pretty telling too. Then there's all that methane ice on the sea floor, it melts from time to time for some reason. It could reach a tipping point and have a cascade melt. Hard to calculate how much methane that could potentially release. Those spikes on the ice core graph are pretty sharp, it apparently doesn't take very long for things to change by a large margin.
Yeah, it seems that once the heating phase is triggered, it quickly turns into a positive feedback loop and starts to grow in an exponential way. Once the wheel of rising temperatures starts spinning, there is no stopping it and it will only spin faster. Not a very hopeful prediction if you ask me...
Methane hydrate is highly sensitive for temperature changes. Specially in shallow (arctic) waters a small temperature change can have a dramatic effect on its stability. And I've seen some anecdotal reports about bubbles in the arctic oceans... so yeah, permafrost and methane hydrate are the likely culprits, at least according to my gut feeling.
starving billions are a bonus, one of the reasons I'm proud to live in the mid-west is that if shit totally hits the fan world wide I can grow my own food, hunt, fish, and have plenty of fresh water all in my backyard, ain't my fault so many people want to live on top of one another in a desert or some other place that can't sustain life without draining resources from somewhere else like where I'm from @@BorisBirkenbaum
"Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels." LMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOO
Long term for us stupid. And your definition is wrong Climate change is long term change in temperature (global avrg) weather and atmospheric composition. And climate change is bad right now because humans are accelerating a 10,000 year process into a 100 year process so none of the animals can adapt to the new environment in time and die off.
It’s almost as if climate is a cumulative of every variable on and off earth and we cannot predict it so we should not attach ourselves to a single ideology but instead be open to learn
Careful talking like that. You will get yourself cancelled/censored so very rich very "important" people have alot riding on all of us being scared stupid and believing we have done something and must give up everything and surrender ourselves and our futures to fix it
something being complex and not fully understood does not mean we "cannot p[predict it", it simply reduces accuracy of predictions. i can predict the sun will rise tomorrow at the same time it did today and it will be wrong in an absolute sense but also 99% right.
But how would the globalists and elites control all of us then?? They desperately need the carbon initiatives and the fear to do this. It astounds me that the masses can't see right through the lies.
10:56 i always really appreciate little moments like this where you occasionally throw *just a little bit* of your humor into these educational videos.
Haha...are you being sarcastic about not knowing the reason why methane has increased since 2003...that's exactly when space travel started to explode... 80 times more warming than carbon dioxide, the leaked gas then accelerates the climate change. SpaceX's superheavy rocket Starship burns liquid methane in its Raptor engines...it's NO COINCIDENCE
The other observation that needs to be made is that because methane breaks down in the atmosphere (mostly into CO2) within around 10 years, any huge changes in methane concentrations represent a very fast-moving situation. i.e. NOT in a geologic time-frame, but in a sub-human time frame. That can be scary, particularly if the emissions are being caused by permafrost melt and continue to stay high. -Matt
Methane is ch4.. it takes about 9 years to break down 8n the atmosphere and no, it does not become co2... not even close. It is a tetrahydral molecule consisting of 1 carbon element surrounded by 4 hydrogen.. there is quite literally no attached oxygen and so how do you prepose it becomes co2 ?
its not scary at all coz methane is PPB not PPM thats parts per billion not parts per million like CO2, methane is basically a non issue to scare peeps...
@@bencoad8492 Take the current methane concentration of around 1900 ppb (which is 1.9 ppm) and multiply by methane's greenhouse factor vs CO2, which is around 80. That gives you 152 ppm of CO2 equivalent from the methane alone. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is currently 416 ppm. So the current CO2 equivalent for methane of 152 ppm vs 416 ppm... that's significant if those levels are maintained or continue to rise. The reason methane is typically ignored is because it essentially turns into CO2 within 10 years or so due to UV from the sun, making it 80 times less of a factor when that happens. But this is only a workable thesis as long as methane emissions are stable or dropping. They are not stable any more and at 1.9ppm (and rising), the continuous impact of the methane is significant.
"For some reason something started happening to methane around 2006..." My first thought is permafrost melt releasing enormous amounts of methane directly into the atmosphere. There are millions of little boiling lakes all over far northern Canada and Siberia bubbling away. Think of all the sequestered dead organic matter suddenly being on the menu for microorganisms all over the arctic tundra as the sun comes out.
I worked on northern Ellesmere island in the summers 2001 - 2014 and the premafrost melt was speeding up. Tundra pckmarked with thousands of craters where the permafrost collapsed the surface, on any aspect, at any altitude. I just saw photos from the Arctic town where I used to live and one bay a few km from town, the hillside has collapsed. When more permafrost melts and the methane hydrates in the ocean volatilize, well yes, there will be a huge global spike in methane.
Methane hydrates seems like the worst positive feedback to worry about. These hydrates are fragile and contain more C02 than the atmosphere oceans and soil combined. Is it too scary to address?
When methane spikes, an inevitable cooling cycle begins. Methane is exceedingly more potent and also stays in the atmosphere longer. These events are just part of a larger cycle that we have accelerated by our actions.
@@ApostateApostrophe42276 sorry to bust your misinformed bubble, but these climatic changes are part of a cyclic event effecting our entire solar system. The narrative of it being anthropogenic is little more than a highly lucrative scam! If you really want to do something as an individual/family to help the future of this planet, stop trashing it with a plethera of non-degradeable disposables and stop poisoning it with the ever-increasing array of bleaches and chemicals we flush down our drains every day! Funny how no one seems to give a damn about the REAL problems humanity is causing, the ones they CAN'T profit from!
Finally someone covering glaciation. I have to bring this up a lot. We are in an Interglaciation period, where glaciers are in retreat. Though I think the video fails to note that it is believed that the trend of Ice Ages started roughly 30 million years ago, not 2-3 million. Though over that period we went in and out of Ice Ages, where permanent glaciers were no longer around. So the current Ice Age (which we are still in) started in the 2-3 million year range like you talked about in this video.
I think you are mixing things up here. We are currently in an interglacial, hence it's still getting warmer until we reach peak and THEN enter glacial phase.
@@M0butu yes, time wise at the beginning, because the warm up happens much faster than the cool down phase, because heat source , the sun is hotter than the temperature of earth, radiating out to space , Stephan Bolzman law, T⁴ relation.
Something I've been wandering about cattle and their contribution to atmospheric methane; how many domesticated cattle are there compared to the former great herds of bison, buffalo, and other large grazing animals? The buffalo were all but wiped out in North America, the bison greatly reduced in Asia and Europe, and even in Africa the number of wildebeest have been significantly reduced. Once we know those numbers, we could compare the methane emissions of those animals against the methane emissions of domestic cattle. If those numbers are roughly equal (which I suspect they are), how can we keep yammering on about the danger of cow farts? If the former great herds of grazing animals didn't cause drastic climate change should we really be that concerned about the atmospheric impact of cows?
@krzysztoftryka399 they always pick on the poor cows . Fermentation of wine and spirits in 2016 12.7 billion tonnes of CO2. You don't see many climate advocates highlighting the carbon footprint of the Distillery industry. My sense of humour is quite dry . I should have stipulated it was a piss take
A long time ago, I read about massive methane hydrate deposits in the ocean, which are held in place by pressure and cold temperatures, the pressure hasn't changed, but the ocean has absorbed 90% of the excess heat so far (very luckily for us). With rising ocean temperatures (I don't know how deep these go though), it makes sense that this is a possible source...
I just had a visit to the doctor. Clean examination and definitely no "brain-rot" discovered. But I do appreciate that constructive criticism from such a distinguished "brain" as yours. one day I will arrive at your level. @@habibishapur
8:54 seems to indicate that melting ice is not human-caused, or at least not related to what we typically call man-made climate change. That is, assuming there’s not some invisible vertical line at the end of the graph. The ice volume is not falling as fast as it did in previous cycles and seems constant. For the individual graphs, it seems like the temperature was lower in the last 10-20 thousand years than there should have been. The one that says “Ice Volume” seems like it is sitting around for as long as the hump from 400 million years ago and sitting around longer than the other humps. If it is man-made, then it must be something simple like agriculture or burning wood and coal. In other words, one thing we will never replace and one thing that is difficult or impossible to replace. The man-made climate change we always hear about is from 200 years ago and onward, from the Industrial Revolution onward. It doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to say the global temperature is warming faster than ever before. We have measurements for only a few hundred years in the past if even that much. The rest would be inferred from methods that probably do not have a resolution of 10 years or even 100 years. How can you compare the rate of change in recent history to the rate of change in the distant past which could have sudden jumps and declines in temperature over a period of a few years which we can’t capture?
What I find amazing is that you say that the Eart stopped freezing 6000 years ago, which is around the same time we as humans started to learn how to write, and around 6000 years before this the other humans stopped existing.
Boys, being able to build and writing are 2 different things, I hope you know that. And 6000 years ago circa is the oldest proof of a writing system we have found so far, maybe in the future we'll find even older traces. But building in general surely dates much further back than writing.
part of the problem with cow farts is. bison numbers. the number of bison now is Dramatically less then 250 years ago. where the estimate number of bison was between 60 to 300 million(hard to count which is why its a estimate) cows are 90 million now. so the average number of cows is prob pretty equal to the number of bison. so blaming the cows looks like a low probability.
Hello Anton !! I love your channel, always informative and intriguing...We are never to old to stop learning and being only 74, I look forward to something new everyday that I didn't know the day before. Your common sense approach to the science of our warming planet verses politicizing global warming, brings truth to the subject...Thank you so much !!
Glad to see this mentioned. It’s just so curious how the largest environmental disaster in recorded history during a time that the environment is the highest priority is just simply cancelled like its a gas stove in NY.
I seem to remember an Anton vid about loads of methane being trapped in the sea floor around Antarctica, which will be released if things get too hot down there - like when the African villages got gassed when the nearby lake "burped" CO2, except more global in effect.
I agree, the extra methane is likely being released by the giant oceans that cover 70% of the earths surface. That's a gigantic factor. Meanwhile, environmentalists in position of political power are haphazardly attacking any industry that has to do with methane, "oh you can't eat beef anymore, those cow farts are going to destroy the earth" Making policy based on wild guesses when in reality this is all way out of our control, an inconsistent sun interacting with 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water
Nice video. I'm from Canada and there has been lots of discussion that melting permafrost is resulting in large emissions of methane. A study from Sweden found that the expected rise was only 1/10 of what was expected..
I'm sure the possibility of a positive feedback cycle in the permafrost fields of Siberia and other areas of the world have been taken into account in the studies.
The latest IPCC report doesn't include many feedback loops (if any?), because you would be called alarmist, so they will be added after they are in effect, which is useless, because it's a feedback loop, which doesn't stop after tipping point. Also Methane clathrates hypothesis is a good read.
I read a discover article years ago that mentioned methane hydrates on the ocean floor, and that as the ocean warms (thereby reducing the pressure holding some of the methane down), methane ‘burps’ can become more frequent and release more methane like a self reinforcing feedback loop. Also I recall climate scientist and ASU professor guy macpherson has mentioned this as well
@@AldousHuxley7hes a biden lover. Election is coming up. They wanna smear ban and harass as many people as possible. They love mass killer Biden. They love the decline of our country.
Thank you so much for a clear scientific explanation of the known factors and unknown factors. I thought according to Earth's orbit we should be typing into an ice age. This is fascinating stuff. Improvise, adapt, overcome. It's the human way! This data can really help!!
One of the biggest emitters of methane is in the Siberian tundra where there is an estimated 10,000 gigatons of frozen methane hydrate that is thawing out. Usually in explosive form making really interesting craters.
And this methane doesn't "disintegrate" as a result of insolation, it oxidizes to water vapor and carbon dioxide which still contributes to warming if not to the same degree.
Naw, that's just Ivan's outhouse exploding after a bit too much Borscht & striking a match. ;) j/k of course! Yeah the craters exploding methane deposits make in the tundra are really something else. There are also areas where it outgasses without a real explosion. There was an event where a herd of several dozen to hundreds of animals were found as though they'd simply dropped dead on the spot. They seemed to have died from asphyxiation after remaining a mysterious occurrence for a couple of years.
@@Stampedby__bonetti That's one incredibly large fart. Makes you wonder why they're so worried about farting cows? Incidentally there's an icy cave that was dug into the tundra in Alaska that has a lot of animal remains in it. More than that though is that it is almost entirely made up of dead plant matter & animal excrement that had begun to decay, building up gasses, then froze for whatever reason. I sincerely wish scientists could come up with a working model of why so many examples of megafauna seem to have flash frozen with food in their mouths & stomachs that exist in completely different climates. The hypothesis of the asteroid or comet that caused the Younger Dryas event would explain all of the strange caves we find completely cram packed with dismembered corpses of megafauna, foliage & mud. Still it doesn't account for a flash freeze event.
They found small lakes in Alaska with methane bubbling up out of them. It was a PBS documentary a few months ago. They lit one on fire. Too bad they can't capture it and use it for fuel.
Anton did mention tundra briefly, but apparently the main source of the current rise in methane is because of the foliage decay in the increasingly warmer African wetlands.
The Arctic circle is releasing massive methane stores from permafrost melting. There have been multiple massive explosions and craters left in their wake in recent years. Also, methane has started boiling up through lakes in Alaska. Cows do have a huge effect, but ultimately we cannot stop the permafrost melt 😅
@@sanniepstein4835 While i also don’t think it’s the cows I would point out that bison ate wild grass and cows are largely fed Corn, Milo, and other food that makes them bigger but they cannot digest as well. So those cows do fart more. But just a fart in the winds worth😉
The permafrost thawing and releasing massive amounts of methane, causing a break-away reinforcement loop, was something scientists were warning about 10 years ago already with maths and everything. It's just ridiculous that we can literally observe this happening now and still people have the gall to state that its all a big mystery.
Personally I think there is a lot of Copium and Hopium in the whole "it takes a very long time for the climate to change". People used to believe that the continents don't move. We know they can move and quite a bit. There is a good reason why every civilization has a Flood apocalypse in their religion/culture.
the geological record shows temperature changes of several degrees virtually overnight. am I'm not talking geological overnight, I'm talking months/years not 1000s to millions.
Everyone always talks about global warming and the damage us humans have caused but never about the cyclical warming the earth would have done even if we weren't here
Well if you read any of the studies on it you would know that is patently untrue. The point is our contributions are rapidly and irreversibly affecting natural processes.
As far as source for the methane, have you considered the 2 Gigatons of methane clathrates (hydrate) found beneath the permafrost and in the oceans below 300m?
@@wallacewilliams535 are you psychotic or raetarded? the meat industry as primary transportation and mass production/consumption is what initiates the melting of the permafrost which will now be making you extinct
The primary feedback agent involved in ice age modulation is DUST, not CO2. It is the deposition of dust just before every interglacial, that lowers the albedo of the northern ice sheets and allows additional insolation absorption and melting. And every interglacial is preceded by 10,000 years of dust. But how is that dust suddenly formed.? Interestingly, it is due to CO2 becoming so low that the Gobi region is turned into a shifting-sand CO2 desert. Without CO2, all plant life on the Gobi is extunguished. This is confirmed by the strata in the Loess Plateau. Thus is in LOW CO2 that is the feedback agent that assists and causes interglacial warming. It is an elegant theory that explains every facet of ice age modulation. See paper: ‘Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks’. Doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.04.004 Ralph
@@RalphEllisInteresting! That would explain some of the pre-industrial shifts we see in glacial climate cycles, but how is that relevant to what is currently going on? This current warming event is not a natural one.
Methane in the permafrost in Sibera is opening up thousands upon thousands of sinkholes because the permafrost is thawing and all the methane from the trapped decayed matter is finally escaping. That's where most of the methane is coming from.
There are two contributors to increased methane which I can think of. The first is that increasing amounts of it are being released from areas where it was formerly locked down in areas covered with permafrost. The second is in shallow oceans and gulfs where, during cooler times, it stays in a frozen or liquid state. A lot of methane has recently volatilized in the Gulf of Mexico owing to record high water temperatures there, which has caused it to leave its frozen and liquid state, and enter its gas state. As the warming trend continues, you can expect even more of it to be released from both sources. These are only two of the possible sources. There are likely other sources which I have not mentioned and don't know about. I would guess that the release comes from the aggregate of many different smaller sources combining to make one, much larger whole. We won't be able to finger one source because at present, there are many sources for the increase in methane. Whereas our activity has been one of the leading causes of the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere, our activity is a smaller piece of the pie when it comes to methane.
Biological cycles are another huge one. The reason that ponds and bogs have so much trapped methane in the first place is because of the biochemical activity of anaerobic bacteria, which metabolize all kinds of organic matter and excrete methane as waste (in addition to carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and others depending on the type of bacteria). The muck at the bottom of a warm lake or swamp and the thick low-oxygen environment of a peat bog are ideal conditions for anaerobic bacteria. But this is only part of the surrounding environment; the layers above are usually full of oxygen and suitable for animal life. This is the crucial fact: When its temperature increases, oxygen is less soluble in water. So there is a delicate temperature range, not too cold and not too hot, that allows this balance of aerobic and anaerobic zones in any healthy lake or wetland to be sustained. Above a certain temperature, the entire body of water up to the surface will not be able to hold on to dissolved oxygen, eventually becoming anoxic and killing most of the complex life, but leaving the anaerobic bacteria to convert all that dead carbon into greenhouse gases which just as easily escape. So emitted CO₂ levels still stay similar for a while-doesn't matter whether it's from an animal or from bacteria-but methane skyrockets. You can imagine how millions of these “methane bоmbs” going off around the world at the same time might alter global temperatures enough to create a positive feedback loop.
Appreciate and thank you for your honesty - "No one really knows what is going on". Man trying to outguess or control nature is pure ignorance with a large ego.
One thing I think could be happening too. Retreating permafrost. There is a lot of methane trapped under it across the nothern hemisphere. . As it melts its releasing the methane back in to the atmosphere. Edit. Oops. Didn't read the top comment
The largest stockpile of decaying organic matter with the potential to explain the numbers just so happens to be somewhere we cant go. The bottom of the ocean is huge and largely unexplored.
I'm always surprised at those who are brave enough to point to natural earth cycles as a better explanation for the changing climate. Makes more sense anyway, when you look into the times that earth was much warmer before industry took hold.
I'm always surprised how people like you manage to completely ignore what's being said and just make up shit which is the exact opposite of what's being said.
When you figure out the hype of carbon heating the world is BS, due to carbon blocking radiance from sol, then one should realize it is methane that helps heat the world. We need more atmospheric carbon to save us from methane.
Methane immediately begins oxidizing back into carbon dioxide and water when it comes into contact with oxygen. This process takes approximately 9 years and 7 months. That is the carbon cycle in action. When the carbon dioxide accumulates, it is absorbed into the ocean and large rock formations. That is sequestration. I would like to thank Anton for pointing out the long-term climate. It is the current Pleistocene or Quaternary glaciation. This is a periodic pulse in the longer term Neogene ice age that began in the mid Oligocene epoch. It is marked by the appearance of the Antarctic ice sheet. The Greenland ice sheet became permanent 18 million years ago in the early Miocene. But, the geologic record indicates that Greenland has gained and completely lost its ice sheet several times between 56 million years ago and 33 million years ago. Earth has heated up and cooled off thousands of times in the very recent past.
Super interesting, thank you. But around 9:40 you are actually confusing the terms ice age and glacial period. Ice age is the period where the polar caps are iced, there were 4-5 total. Glacial and interglacial periods are a pattern of colder/warmer climate _within_ the current ice age. So you are gonna have interglacial period that will still have polar ice caps.
@@xmathmanxno, he speaks about we are still in an ice age period, because there are polar ice fields still. This is not true, we are not in an ice age phase anymore for around 10000 years already. Also the study cited refers to glacial termination, not ice age termination.
@@xmathmanx "We do expect Earth to warm up ... Remember, this is still ice age. And because we still have polar ice sheets we are still technically in the glaciation period that's turning into interglacial period". This is incorrect. First, he ties the arrival of the interglacial period with polar ice sheets melting, but interglacial period has nothing to do with them. Both glacial and interglacial periods have ice (the question is just about the amount), because we are continuing living in an ice age. Second, yes, earth will warm up at some point and we will leave the ice age, meaning that the poles will unfreeze, but it has nothing to do with any of the dynamics of glaciation he is talking about with respect to that paper. Also, from what I understand, we've been in an interglacial period for quite a long time (in fact we owe the rise of human civilization to that fact), and the paper seems to be using a delicate phrasing that the current increase in methane is _comparable_ to a termination event, rather than calling it a termination event.
Multiple things 1) Methane release from permafrost 2) Albedo change (less ice, and trees rather than tundra) 3) Methane clathrate release Suddenly there's a lot more greenhouse gas potential, for a while at least, but the albedo change acts to make it much more potent. We could be in for a lot of change this century.
The lower albedo of trees cool the planet, via transpiration, and conversion of electromagnetic energy into mass (sugar) The proof of this is the higher albedo of Urban areas, but these areas are always a few degrees warmer than the surrounding wooded regions. (urban heat islands) Suburbs also increase albedo, but just the opposite, we see a higher temperature result... (entire heat regions) ... not that more reflected short wave light into space does not make a difference? It does!!! But the difference is trees.
Its best not to even think of these things, its out of our hands, Its the worst thing about being human, we focus on all this crap we can't control, and let the way we think about it control our lives, it leads to a lot of good outcomes too though
![🎤 ไปกันต่อออ! จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.2] (1/2) เพลงของใครจึ้งสุดน้าา 💓🎤 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mLI_K0sAS4o/mqdefault.jpg)
Some sidenotes I didn't get to add in the video:
-Tundra permafrost melting is definitely a contributor too but from the data in the paper it seems the wetlands are adding larger amounts in comparison.
-Increase in farmland in countries like Brazil is a contributor too but it's not growing large enough compared to the data
-This is the first study majorly addressing this, so it's still not clear what's happening
-The methane data seems to be very robust and was reported in other papers using other observations so the jump is real
-Methane correlates with solar activity as well (check out Neptune video below) and the Sun is becoming super active, so it may skew the data downward...suggesting the levels may go up even higher after 2026...maybe
-CO2 is still an issue too and will be making things even worse. It's also what probably started all of this. Internal studies conducted by oil companies in the 1960s/1970s literally predicted all of this. They just cared about profits more: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
Neptune and methane: th-cam.com/video/60z6fpFehyA/w-d-xo.html
Things like this are why I've always preferred the term "climate change" to "global warming." We're still learning so much about these dynamic systems and cycles. Big shifts and events happen, but we definitely don't want to be pushing them with our pollution.
Thanks for the notes! 💜🌏🌌
Amazing as always, Anton. Thank you for all the work you have done for science communication over the years. It is really good to hear this topic discussed without the politics
Fascinating! I was going to ask whether the 11 year solar cycle and increase in activity might have anything to do with methane amounts, but I didn't think that would be possible. How does light, solar winds, radiation and temperature influence methane levels?
The un dropped a fact check on this😂
Prepare for a demonitization wave Anton.
I want to apologize to everyone for the spike in methane gas. It was taco Tuesday that put me over the edge. Won’t happen again.
Liar, you know it will happen every week and you will enjoy it.
You mean Taco Friday?
@@stephennelson4954why would it be friday instead of Tuesday. Its taco tuesday for the alliteration of the T's
@@noahcabrera9870 Friday is the day before the weekend and as such consumption of the taco on Friday is to celebrate happy times.
You need to reach net zero taco by about 2030.
As the person who spent my whole childhood in permafrost above arctic circle where winter in 90s was 10 months a year, to today's situation with winter barely lasting 6 months and summers peaking at 30 degrees celsius this year, which is a historical record for permafrost. I can tell that tundra's melt is definitely causing methane to be released from all of the composted organics stored for thousands of years in the Earth's "Fridge".
it happened many times with previous interglacials though, with humans not causing anything, and Earth is still there so we will be fine.
@@xtremelemon8612 Exactly!
@@xtremelemon8612 do we know for a fact humans didn't cause anything? I mean people always mention plastics, but how do we know they're actual breakdown rate in nature when it's only be really studied in the lab, and in my lifetime alone there has been multiple findings of animals and bacteria using plastics to their advantage, increasing their decay, hence all the micro plastics about.
@@jbarnhart2774 yes I think it is quite sure for few reasons:
until 100k years ago I dont even know if the population of our specie was a 7 or even 6 digit number, I mean during the Younger Dryas human population world wide estimates were like around 10 million people, who were just peacufully hunting-gathering, which is nothing. In fact if you look at the Co2 ice core data its flat like a pancake so theres the proof I guess. And if you consider that at some point in time Earth was full of Dinos or huge animals emitting I dont know how much more methane and co2 than all the biomass existing today combined, and yet there
was never a runaway greenhouse effect anyway.
@@xtremelemon8612Wouldn't say that 'we' are gonna be fine, but the earth as a whole will be for sure.
Wetlands+ agriculture (rice growth)+hydrates+leaks in shales.
There are a number of worrying papers on méthane leaks in shales and oil exploitations.
The article Anton is covering does mention/imply permafrost melt in the north, it's just not as much of a factor right now - "wetlands in Africa (15 Tg/yr) and Canada and Alaska (4.8 Tg/yr)".But the permafrost melt would be a great topic to cover Anton, please discuss the clathrate gun in your usual entertaining and interesting style!
It hasn't been adequately measured. If you look into it yourself you'll see researchers want to do more measurements and analyze more area. Lack of funding prevents the data coming out faster. There's entire frozen lakes with trapped methane that haven't been properly analyzed and added to the data models. Don't rely on youtubers to tell you everything, you can actually search things yourself and find the truth without someone telling you everything they want you to believe. He makes money by you believing in him. Do your proper research and stop being tricked.
=YESSSS,PERMA FROST BUT *NOT* COWS,AGREE????
.......................
It's nothing compared to the Nordstream pipeline incident.
👀 Kinda surprised this is STILL under the radar 👀
Lets be real here with all the new mexican restaurants popping up its no wonder methane has increased. I fart and poop way more than I used to.
i've been hearing so often for years about the methane being released by the melting of the permafrost in high latitudes, tundra etc, that it's odd for it not to be mentioned here. scientists have been fretting loudly about specifically that for decades.
I, too, was kind of at a loss for why that wasn't mentioned.
Because it's Been mentioned for decades. We're discussing a new source no?
@@kavalogue thats my take away, that there appear to be even more sources than thought.
Just as long as we are talking about an ADDITIONAL source, not a replacement source.
@@kavalogueIn the paper Anton linked, they do say that “additional source input during major terminations as the retreat of the northern ice sheet allowed higher methane emissions from extending periglacial wetlands”. But then they bang on about tropical wetlands being a possibly underestimated source. Personally it seems more likely that sources like the ancient peat bogs that are only now beginning to thaw in large areas of Russia are to blame, and that we’re now in the feedback loop phase, but who knows? Maybe these tropical wetlands are emitting even more…
I'm surprised that methane release from the rapidly warming tundra wasn't mentioned.
kinda was my first assumption, figured was gona be how we started a positive feedback loop with it or sumthing
That's hubris to think we matter enough. That's why. Earth sharply cares we are here.
It's not the problem. They would outlaw war machines if anything they claim is true. The people are fooled again
Not just that. Think of all the shelfs of methane ice on the continental shelves, as the water warms.
NASA squandered millions looking for Arctic methane and came up with zilch
"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.
Aren't the giant sinkholes opening up in the siberian permafrost due to methane being released?
They are explosive craters, not sink holes. They've analyzed the debris patterns around them.. And yes, they are from methane pockets..
Yes just as happened in the past every time the permafrost melts menat times before humans did anything....
All natural cycles
@@Truth-And-FreedomIt didn’t happen as fast as now did it?
@@Power_to_the_people567 look at the chart in the vid - it's exactly same in past as now ....
You are in a cult mate ...... Face it
@@johnnyjericho8472no 10,000 years to melt
Doggerland was told to be settled too. Now it is covered by waters of north sea (It is located between British islands and Netherlands in Europe)
Dogger Bank. Now it's home to the world's largest offshore wind farm.
To be fair, what seems to be mostly marshland, which got flooded away because of a large underwater landslide off of Norway
@@Nightdare marshland that was rich in fish, birds and reeds with the mainland centre being on Dogger Island. Probably explains why the English have such a high genetic influence by the Dutch. The Norwegian landslide was just the final nail in the coffin, there had been continual sea rises and multiple flood events before that with increased earthquake activity caused by glacial rebound.
It is good to see a comment based on established fact than a click bait reply.@@BogusDudeGW
@@BogusDudeGW
You are correct that the ocean level has been rising for the past 13000-12000 years
So if all else remained the same, it would have been inevitable
...it might not have been the final nail if sediment from mainland rivers and/or ocean currents could have filled the area at a higher rate than the levels increreased
But that's useless theorization after the fact
Anton saying Hanky Panky is just brilliant 👌✌️🤣
Just hit that part of the video and was just about to post something similar! There's just something irresistibly hilarious about someone with his brilliance AND accent saying "hanky-panky!"
I was literally reading this comment as he said it. Wild.
I've been holding my gas for weeks now in support of the fart crisis we are in. Hopefully, by not farting for a month, I can help save a cow from being killed by our government.
Anton, Just a casual observation; I’m 68 years old and have seen many lakes and ponds in the Adirondacks (in upstate N Y) start to look more like “bogs”. Places that had liquid water in abundance when we were children have transitioned to near bogs. Big lakes, such as the Champlain and lake George, are mot becoming bogs anytime soon, but I wonder if these bogs full of decaying plant matter are producing large amounts of methane??? It would seem to me to make sense.Small lakes and ponds that we noticed as kids (viewed from the car while on vacation),are now to the point where you can almost walk across them! Food for thought??? I find your posts most intriguing and so interesting-science is a blast!
Many small bodies of water are algae pits because of fertilizer runoff.
I just noticed the same thing in Ohio.
Sir I don’t know about your area but how is the population there. In my state of Texas, ours has tripled in your lifetime. The water source your seeing may not be on the tap but I would bet money that somewhere down the line it is. In my area we have lowered the water table by a hundred foot in the last 10 years. A lot of it the pump a mile down 500 barrels at a time since you can’t use salt water for fracking or acidizing. Once it’s there it is recoverable. At least not in any form of use.
I wonder if it could be related to human activity. First, humans had been draining or otherwise destroying a lot of wetlands over the last hundred years (for crops, pasture, removing hazards to people and livestock, control mosquitoes, housing, or reducing beaver that can create some wetlands). I think of this every time I see that Lassie meme about thinking quicksand would be a a bigger problem growing up. However, recent decades have seen green initiatives to restore wetlands but agricultural runoff of topsoil and fertilizer might cause eutrophication as well. I've noticed more trees than usual have been blown down onto the road in a certain area in recent years and I realized most of those trees are about the same age because many were planted at the same time because the area was restored to parkland several decades ago.
I don't know about your area but at least in North Carolina there was a program to eradicate beavers because after they moved back into those areas of North Carolina (presumably after being trapped to extinction locally) their population rapidly increased until were inundating so much low lying forest land.
What I love about this channel is the topics are the kinds of things I’m always interested in. Anton you do a great job of bringing these ideas and studies to us.
Maybe you're just interested in all things science?😂
How dare you!
I say nay!! Anton you do an absolutely wonderful and amazing job of bringing the facts of these studies to all of us. Thank you! I love your channel!
Hey… I have some magic beans to sell ya, real cheap. You interested?
Astrophysics? Cuz that’s all he talks about lol
Thank Anton for being such a wonderful person and sharing all the cool science discoveries. You are the best
I remember being taught that we are still in an ice age. Now I don't feel crazy anymore
we're not crazy the mainstream just doesn't report known facts. We're colder than have been for 450my. Last Act of Permian Age until few mya planet was ice free. Our biomass is equal to Cambrian Age... as in net zero biomass to show for 550my
We're certainly not in a global warming phase, not at all. If you look at the Greenland ice core sample graphs, they show earth's temperature for the last million years, and most of it was WAY higher than it is now. We also have to keep in mind that the habitable zone constantly changes on earth. Arctic areas used to be lush and green. So when we measure changes in climate, we can't just say "Oh it's hotter here where people live now, so it's man made climate change". No. Forests have turned to deserts, and deserts have turned to forests. The metrics being pushed by climate alarmism are completely cherry picked and distorted from reality. And the worst part is it could doom the entire species, because if we start pushing for "renewable" power sources like solar, in a world that is turned into an ice ball, there's no way we'll generate enough energy to save ourselves. The deep freeze will hit and these "green" energy sources will become virtually useless, because you're not running solar panels in a world full of ice and deep snow. Any solar fields would become quickly useless as they would be buried in snow, and not receive much sunlight even if they weren't buried, because of all the cloud cover from ice particles in the atmosphere. The only thing that can save us at the point is either nuclear power or fossil fuels. Some people think fusion will be the answer, but it won't, because we don't have enough of the required elements on earth to actually make them work....and never will. So unless we have some kind of anti matter breakthrough where we can synthesize it, fossil fuels are going to be the most useful for a freezing world. There are wave based generators that show promise, but those go out the window in a frozen world, because if the surface of the ocean is frozen, you no longer have waves nor access to run these generators, and you would need a LOT of them.
@@peoplez129 You are more right than wrong. Our Ice age was here a million years ago, technically it is 30my old but if we mean more problems than just one pole covered in ice and more central continents covered and chilled then Ice Age is more like 3my
15mya we had a nice warm spell that helped apes make it as far as the Alps! Before that the Eocene was recovering from the Dinosaur killer impact but like 60mya to 33mya was 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. I think I want that world so I have to prefer we stay with fossil fuels? For now.
Close to 250my from when out Ice Age starts to when the last one before it ended... as the Permian became the Triassic it warmed, maybe too quickly.
Permian-Triassic-Extinction-Event I would only read about that if you like horror moves. 90% of creatures did not survive. Imagine we had cockroaches and 4 types of weeds and pigeons became cannibals to survive and that's the spirit of that time.
Mother Earth is happier when warm. That seems fair to say
Yeah I thought we were in the tail of the last ice age.
@@tommarsal3356 more like when getting your azz beat in an alley there's a pause of being kicked. Bringing in a guy with fresh leg muscles.
We're in an 'interglacial' more widely known as the Holocene. It is just a pause can't post pictures here but will do a vid with all the charts soon I hope the Ice Ages' ratio of years of frozen hellscape compared to number of years in these interglacials and even inside our recorded history of Egypt and Greece, the 'little ice ages' seem to be getting colder. Put those together... I'm apparently the only one following those lines out.
I think we were in for a Mass Extinction likes of which haven't seen in 260my.
Burning all the oil, by accident was like pulling 3 Aces. As per the video by 'terminating' the Ice Age I think they mean more the next glaciation not the pattern of glaciation... if that makes sense? So bought 10-50k years not likely many of which colder than now. I'd rather go whole hog and do what it takes to just end ice on earth for millions of years. Others with this Carbon Retrieval and Storage business will never want to close down their facilities and let their landlord/mortgage holder evict them, right? It can never get low carbon and cold enough for them. Plants shut down at 150ppm no flowering no nutting, coat themselves in wav and try to wait for Earth to heal itself with more carbon. Getting ahead of myself.
Suggest check out the 'Eemian Period' I think that was last time before our Holocene and was even a few degrees warmer than now. Penetration of modern humans into Europe but ice pushed us back more than Neanderthals. 115ky ago I've been looking at periods back further than 'just' few million years so weaker on 'near history' Eemian did see tree forest belt extend deep into West Texas and that was a clue I needed.
I was lucky to meet Euan Nisbet, the main author of the paper. A very nice gentleman coming originally from South Africa. Not to mention, he is the greatest authority of atmospheric methane we have.
Ah, he's a colonial. Thanks for saving my time. I won't be watching this Aparthied hogwash now.
The foremost authority on this subject is Dr Darmfalte in my country
@@ThePrimebeef Is it supposed to be a joke, or what?
I want a video on how you run this channel. You just burst into my phone every day with zero sponsors or ads. You comprehensively simplify a recent topic of discussion that goes more in depth than what high school would ever get into. And then you leave to go do it all again the next day. How do you do it? How are you so awesome??
Some people really love doing research. I've heard "It's my happy place" from somebody once.
Anton once said that he started the channel when his mom passed away and that he also returned relatively quickly after the passing of his son because making those videos actually makes him feel better.
But, yes, getting some insight into his work process would really be interesting.
@@johannageisel5390 oh my god he lost his son?? I’m kinda new here so I didn’t know that. I need to support him with what I can. That’s just terrible
At over 1 mill maybe he had sponsors in the past and not everyone is like others who just want to become richer and richer lol
It's not hard to go in "more depth" than "high school". Considering that the majority of high schools are very inefficient at teaching anything and have horribly low educational standards.
@@ImmortalLemon Yes, very sadly he and his wife lost their second born in his infancy due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome last year.
Anton was gone for about two weeks but then returned and started a fundraiser in the name of his son to benefit families in Ukraine. The fundraiser went on for several months (maybe a year) but has been closed by now.
So nice to see you smile at the end Anton. Your channel is amazing, better than school teachings. Thank you for all your hard work and hours of research to put each discovery together.👏🏼😄💕
In case you haven't been back since you left your comment, Anton has added more in his pinned comment. He addressed that, my friend.
Have a good weekend😃
@@Julia-uh4li ok thank you Julia😀
Thank you for your work, Randall & Graham!
This is a great episode, now you got my Sub! You hit exactly some of my thoughts and ideas, but more important you gave us things to think about. Thanks for your passion and open thoughts
Thank you for making this vid, it’s a complicated issue and not many are willing to to state the conclusion “ we just don’t know” thank you, it is very brave, it shows your dedication to science. Thank you
He's not saying anthropomorphic climate isn't happening, just that this particular phenomenon isn't human caused.
@@thomasprislacjr.4063 I understand what he is saying, but is still a sensitive topic to discuss because there is a lot of political polarization on the topic. He did a good job of not letting that into the science.
@thomasprislacjr.4063 Humans have some impact on climate change. Exactly how much is not known and can not be known. If someone think they have the answers, what's the % of change humans have contributed?
Simply put, they pay scientists to lie for them and promote a false narrative. The evidence is clear if you scrutinize the reports and do a little research.
@thomasprislacjr.4063 the point is you have been subject to actual violence for questioning anything related to "climate change" and let's be real, when you can't question something it's no longer science and is only propaganda. Science has been dead in many categories for some time due to cultural and political forces from all sides (but 1 direction more than others yes, but it should be condemned in any form)
Cthulu is mighty gassy after it's long icy slumber.
What a great vid, I was expecting something really depressing and alarmist, and while we have good reasons to be worried, this video was as factual, fascinating and informative as usual. Great job Anton!
I can’t stand climate alarmism and politics when it comes to the weather. George Carlin said it best:
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. “
@thefamily512 exactly, Carlen said it best. Alarmists are concerned about cities on the coast that will inevitably end up underwater anyways. There isn’t a single square mile on this planet that is guaranteed to be habitable forever. People aren’t concerned about the Earth. They are concerned that one day they will be brought back to the Stone Age where there isn’t a McDonalds or Starbucks on every corner and water no longer comes in a bottle. Basically, they are worried about their privileged status. Lmfao
2030 is the target date set by a group that advocates World Communism as well. Research criticism of the WEF to find out more.
@thefamily512 how about, "stop destroying the environment with your slack habits "?
And the people telling me that I’m destroying the planet are the same type that live in cities, needs everything truck driven to them, use plastics all day, support big companies that are responsible for a lot of climate damage, and think they are fighting climate change by just blaming people online that they are destroying the planet, that’s all they think they have to do, while they blame me for climate change while I live in a small town, hunt and grow my own food, do beach cleanups, hunt invasive species and don’t consume from these corporations, it will never actually change because the very people complaining are the ones doing the least
I appreciate how observations are presented with facts. The facts are "not really sure" which lends to this gentleman's credibility. This type of reality is really lacking today. Thank you for the information it is appreciated!!!
Thanks. "Gentleman's credibility" is now my new favorite phrase
Whenever i hear or read that CO2 lvl in the atmospehere is playing a part in climate change my doubt of the content credibility is starting to fall. It’s been debunked by various studies, that co2 lvls have no direct correlation with warming or cooling. Also they can’t even tell whats the weather going to be like in my region 3 days from now just guessing someshit and most if time it’s unaccurate. But they can tell for sure whats going to happen years into the future…
No, it's not lacking, usually it's avoided in public presentations. The scientists are not sure of anything and, as a consequence, the engineers are not sure of anything, or, to put it in a Murphy-esque way, we're sure always something will break or something is wrong in our maths. That's why we (I'm a physicist) are using statistics and sigma, that's why the engineers are building safety systems and redundant systems which make the final product many times more expensive. The problem is the public doesn't understand that incertitude is a built-in feature of science and there's no way to express our opinions to the untrained public without looking like idiots. And, unfortunately, this is where the ball is taken and played by people who are very certain in their truth: the politicians (and, at large, by the people who have any kind of agenda, propaganda creators included). Remember the SARS-CoV-2 debacle?
@@user-js7ev3fy5n I don't want you to even think about it because I consider it a stupid idea. There are more likely explanations than that. And I'm Romanian, I know how propaganda works and what are the limits of putting a lid on information. But maybe I'm an oligarch and a rich guy and I don't know it. Somebody wake me! A 100k $ shower would just be fine for starters!
Look up dane wigington asap!
Always love your posts Anton! Hope all is well with you. Love the smile at the end man! Stay safe everyone!
I just wanted to comment somewhat the same 👍
Stay sane, stay free
There are several hypothesis that were worth to investigate: 1-Dam construction is known to flood big regions which cause methane emissions. 2- positive feedback loop - as temperature increases, it shifts the solubility of methane in water and their part start to emit.
The solubility of methane and water is extremely low. It has zero dipole moment, and extremely low polarizability. I haven't done the quantitative evaluation, but I suspect the effect to be negligible in comparison with highly soluble CO2. You are correct however that solubility of gases generally decreases with temperature.
*The solubility of methane IN water. IN IN IN water.
Just like CO2.
It's the natural warming that increases the CO2 rate in the atmosphere.
As proven by the measures in ice carrots.
The analyses show that in prehistory, the increase of CO2 rates always FOLLOWS the increase of temperatures.
Not the opposite.
On the global scale, dams don't flood enough to be as large a factor as permafrost melt.
Couldn’t be possible cause humans arnt the blame duh
Great video. Very sad that politicians are trying to blame the poor / middle class, workers and farmers for climate change but this video shows us the bigger threat isn't human emissions..
It isn't a threat humans are going to have to change their way of life no matter what because even if we are the absolute main factor of this issue even if the issue didn't exist the climate would still change even if it was over a longer period it still means that Humanity has to change its agricultural ways it's how it is the habitat isn't just going to stay the same forever Everything Will Change in our way of life will change quickly or slowly it doesn't matter
Biggest threat to human life are the people in charge 🤬
Anton: "NEPTUNE IS LOSING ITS METHANE CLOUDS!"
(Three days later)
Anton: "There seems to be a lot of methane on Earth now..."
Guess Neptune farted and Earth got the brunt of it.
Good one! lolol
@@feiradragon7915Pretty sure there's much more methane in Uranus.
Microwormholes
Interesting. I wish people discussed this more technically and seriously instead of directly aiming for a one line jokes...
20,000 years ago sea level was 400 feet lower than today. Humans had zero to do with that rise.
We are at a naturally caused end of ice in the north, but there are those who would blame humans for the whimping end of ice in the north.
This end was already in process.
Imagine how life was before the ice age. Needed a lot of water to be retained in the atmosphere to do that.
My understanding is that life was not much different from now and eventually we will hit another long term cycle of going into another ice age.
Climate cycles take at least hundreds of thousands of years to change, not 100 like what we're experiencing now. We ARE responsible. Try again.
@@AFellowCyberman
Bull. There are temperature records in the ice cores which show rapid changes in temperature literally over a decade.
These occurred at a time when no human civilization existed on the planet.
Quit making up stuff.
If we ignore the effects of human-caused climate change, the Milankovitch cycles predict that the Earth should be cooling right now.
This is because the Earth's tilt is decreasing, which means that the seasons will become less extreme and the Northern Hemisphere will receive less sunlight in the summer.
In northern Australia, coastal north Queensland, the folk history of the Aboriginal people living there, clearly recalls the time sea level rapidly rose between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago.
At times the sea level was rising at such a pace, it is believed those living in littoral areas would have had to move camp every year to avoid the inundation.
there's some good examples off the coast of India of submerged cities that could be upto 30,000 year old. Similarly around the Black Sea you can see how the settlements were pushed further and further inland as the sea expanded. The English channel being carved out between 5,000 and 10,000BC and the shear weight of the water along with glacial rebound causing the land, including Doggerisland, to be pushed further and further down into the mantle, which in itself causes further molten displacement. I find it interesting to look at tectonic plate maps to see the effects of our ever expanding planet, to think its only took a couple of hundred million years for the Atlantic to form, so many countries and continents clearly splitting up and breaking apart.
And that without humans causing it, go figure that. Climatechange activists will blow a fuse if they read this.
Everywhere you go all over the world, there are legends of a great flood. The only way that could occur is if the ice rapidly melted pretty much affecting the entire globe. The cause of the rapid melting? Well I'll leave that to the likes of Graham Hancock to argue over.
There is evidence on the seafloor of the Persian gulf of settlements showing it was inhabited. The people fled to the current coasts. These may have been the ancestors of the Akkadians who settled the Tigris-Euphrates valleys.
Thank goodness they had carbon credits to help them relocate
John Clauser, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, became the second Nobel laureate last month to sign the document with 1,607 other scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis.
Won't be long before he's called a charlatan or bullied out of academia.
@@stewitr why?
Only humans will build against the ocean and get mad at other humans when the ocean does what the ocean has always done. It's like being surprised the active volcano you built your house beside burns your house down.
@@tripplefives1402 But the people in tornado alley don't blame the human race for tornadoes. We just kinda take it and unite to rebuild. It's more being devastated than angry.
The hell is this comment even talking about?
@@tripplefives1402not really. Not all have disasters. Strong weather events at most. Or a tiny tremor perhaps. But nothing else. The U.K. and certain areas of Colombia for example.
Finally someone with common sense who can understand that the world isn’t a perfect oyster for our lives, we just happen to be able to exist on it because it’s not as hostile AS IT COULD BE.
@@Syntex366 I really love your statement. Kudos.
Anton, this was the single best and most comprehensive perspective I've seen so far. I truly enjoyed the full picture and historical context without the political drama or ulterior motive. Excellent work!
No political drama ? Yet you’re bringing up political drama and title is tryna give humans a pass on all the pollution we cause. Yeah this is all natural occurring nothing to see here. Studies sponsored by big oil and gas execs
Seriously? With all that is out there? This was the single best and most comprehensive perspective?
Oh right You like this because he didn't explicitly say it had anything to do with billions upon billions of people over the last two centuries extracting hundreds of billions of tons of carbon from beneath the Earth's crust and burning it into our paper than atmosphere.
Although if you listen closely he did actually mention that in one brief sentence as being in the cause of the recent rapid warming that has triggered these methane releases. Climate scientists have been saying this for a while now and that tipping into these methane releases is only going to exacerbate the serious problem we're facing as a civilization (If not also a species).
Methane hydrate is found as a ice-like deposit in ocean waters within a range of pressure (depth) and temperatures. It seems plausible to me that even small increases in temperature at these depths could result in the release of significant amount of methane from this reservoir. It would also be hard to estimate the amount that is released given the difficulty in determining temperatures over the extended range methane hydrate is found.
Good point. Let's face it- there are too many CH4 inputs to consider, let alone control or minimize. We are in for quite a climatic ride!
Here's the comment I was looking for. There's an astronomical amount of it in the ocean; the last I heard anyone raise this issue was years ago in reference to mass extinction events, since if ocean deposits thaw the air would become unbreathable.
Methane hydrates on the out continental shelf are indeed some of the largest methane deposits on our planet. They are also subject to becoming unstable if their ambient temperature were to rise to a level where they would subliminate into a gas. However, you are mistaken in that we don't know what the current temperatures of the continental shelves are and that we do not know what temperatures that gas hydrates would sublimate. Anyone that has ever looked at a ternary eutectic diagram for the ocean geochemistry can see exactly what would be required. Suffice it for the moment to say we have not reached that point for sublimation as of now. The entire question of modeling is subject to chaotic evolution of the physical systems and therefore not readily possible to create a reliable model based on available data, What we do know is that, as this video spoke of and documented, the planet is in an usually cool state right now compared to long term and holocene paleo climates. We should expect to see warming regardless of anthropamorphic cause or not. It is totally arbitrary to pick an "ideal" temperature target simply based what it was 20, 50, 100, 500, or even a few 1000 years ago. Further, what to do about warming (regardless of a chosen target) is a policy question, with available choices depending on current and future technologies. Remember, that just 50 years ago, it was claimed that the earth had reached its population limit and was about to see the entire ecosystem collapse from over population. That was a population of a bit under 4 billion. Now we have double that and now we produce enough food to actually feed everyone (if it was efficiently distributed). Trying to solve tomorrows problems with today's technology is costly and largely doomed to failure. It would be like trying to build bigger jet planes to get to the moon instead of developing rocketry. Or like 1920s food production trying to address global food shortages based on projected population growth. This is why we need much more policy debates on climate change rather that arguing about if it is happening and why. It does not matter why, and even if everyone agrees it is happening (afterall, by definition climate is always changing over time .. static climates are dead planets like venus and mars). What matters is what policy choices wse make to deal with it. Do we embrace technologic programs to adapt for the change. I happen to think that is more practical and cheaper than trying to stop the change from happening (we can't in the long turn due to geologic and geochemical forces). Maybe I am wrong .,. but that is exactly why policy debate on how to deal with it is needed even though it is basically totally ignored by climate fanatics who insist we must stop change from happening, Remember, the most abundant atmospheric green house gas is never even spoken about .. it is (according to NASA and all other scientific sources) .... WATER VAPOR. Yep, water vapor dwarfs all other atmospheric green house gases. Yet you never hear anyone advocating to control water vapor!
The clathrate gυn hypothesis seems to be getting more support these days
@@lucid6891 I guess we need more CO2 for more plants to make more o2 too offset the methane or find a way to scrub methane from the air
There is a LOT of politics involved with the methane released from permafrost melting. PBS did a special on a huge sinkhole opening in eastern Siberia, and talked about all the gases escaping, and then inexplicably ignored the fact that there wasn't just one sinkhole releasing gases, but literally thousands. Likewise, there is a huge excavation going on in Alaska, and there's a lot of melting going in, even deep in the tunnels (the air is warm enough to cause melting). A hundred thousand years ago, most of Siberia was marsh and wetlands -- the SAME environment as in Africa. The fact that PBS Nova would document one huge sinkhole, and subtly imply it was an isolated incident is terribly disturbing, for when science is "bent" to political pressures, it makes it hard to make good decisions. There are hints, too, that during colder periods some methane pockets sank into the North Pacific, and as the ocean warms, the pockets of gas will get released, adding to the warming.
Check out a place called Doggerland. Its not a trap i promise, however baity the name seems lol
Fisherman on the North sea trawlers often dredge up old mammoth bones, and wooden artefacts from the sea bed...
yeah. i just found a yt channel called atlas pro.
he probably has a video all about it on his channel.
Dogger has nothing to do with dogs. 😂😂😂
@@billynomates920great channel
@@wellesmorgado4797 Or dogging… sorry, couldn’t resist.
You should do a video on geoengineering and the recent realization that the bill lowering the use of sulfur enriched fuels in ocean liners has caused us to cool the planet unintentionally due to having shiny clouds basically
Great info, thanks. Satellite images of methane clouds over melting tundra (perma frost)are pretty telling too. Then there's all that methane ice on the sea floor, it melts from time to time for some reason. It could reach a tipping point and have a cascade melt. Hard to calculate how much methane that could potentially release. Those spikes on the ice core graph are pretty sharp, it apparently doesn't take very long for things to change by a large margin.
Witnessed by civilizations long ago
Yeah, it seems that once the heating phase is triggered, it quickly turns into a positive feedback loop and starts to grow in an exponential way. Once the wheel of rising temperatures starts spinning, there is no stopping it and it will only spin faster. Not a very hopeful prediction if you ask me...
No no it is people doing it, yeah yeah that's the ticket 8)
One lightning strike and BOOM!
Methane hydrate is highly sensitive for temperature changes. Specially in shallow (arctic) waters a small temperature change can have a dramatic effect on its stability. And I've seen some anecdotal reports about bubbles in the arctic oceans... so yeah, permafrost and methane hydrate are the likely culprits, at least according to my gut feeling.
all I know is over the last 25 years my area has gotten milder and milder, so I'm all for it
Yeah im all for the starving billions.
starving billions are a bonus, one of the reasons I'm proud to live in the mid-west is that if shit totally hits the fan world wide I can grow my own food, hunt, fish, and have plenty of fresh water all in my backyard, ain't my fault so many people want to live on top of one another in a desert or some other place that can't sustain life without draining resources from somewhere else like where I'm from @@BorisBirkenbaum
Let's see how quietly this study gets swept under the rug, you can't question the climate religion, I mean science™️.
Hahaha! Got em!
Are you climate change deniers or just human induced climate change deniers?
"Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels."
LMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOO
Long term for us stupid. And your definition is wrong
Climate change is long term change in temperature (global avrg) weather and atmospheric composition.
And climate change is bad right now because humans are accelerating a 10,000 year process into a 100 year process so none of the animals can adapt to the new environment in time and die off.
It’s almost as if climate is a cumulative of every variable on and off earth and we cannot predict it so we should not attach ourselves to a single ideology but instead be open to learn
Humans don't have the technology to stabilize and maintain Earth's climate. Actual climate change has nearly nothing to do with what humans are doing.
Exactly
Careful talking like that. You will get yourself cancelled/censored so very rich very "important" people have alot riding on all of us being scared stupid and believing we have done something and must give up everything and surrender ourselves and our futures to fix it
something being complex and not fully understood does not mean we "cannot p[predict it", it simply reduces accuracy of predictions. i can predict the sun will rise tomorrow at the same time it did today and it will be wrong in an absolute sense but also 99% right.
But how would the globalists and elites control all of us then?? They desperately need the carbon initiatives and the fear to do this. It astounds me that the masses can't see right through the lies.
10:56 i always really appreciate little moments like this where you occasionally throw *just a little bit* of your humor into these educational videos.
Haha...are you being sarcastic about not knowing the reason why methane has increased since 2003...that's exactly when space travel started to explode...
80 times more warming than carbon dioxide, the leaked gas then accelerates the climate change. SpaceX's superheavy rocket Starship burns liquid methane in its Raptor engines...it's NO COINCIDENCE
I wonder if anyone will go to our timestamps to see what we're talking about in our comments:
10:30 Exactly, you said it in a nutshell!
The other observation that needs to be made is that because methane breaks down in the atmosphere (mostly into CO2) within around 10 years, any huge changes in methane concentrations represent a very fast-moving situation. i.e. NOT in a geologic time-frame, but in a sub-human time frame. That can be scary, particularly if the emissions are being caused by permafrost melt and continue to stay high.
-Matt
Bs
He talks about the breakdown of methane near the end
Methane is ch4.. it takes about 9 years to break down 8n the atmosphere and no, it does not become co2... not even close. It is a tetrahydral molecule consisting of 1 carbon element surrounded by 4 hydrogen.. there is quite literally no attached oxygen and so how do you prepose it becomes co2 ?
its not scary at all coz methane is PPB not PPM thats parts per billion not parts per million like CO2, methane is basically a non issue to scare peeps...
@@bencoad8492 Take the current methane concentration of around 1900 ppb (which is 1.9 ppm) and multiply by methane's greenhouse factor vs CO2, which is around 80. That gives you 152 ppm of CO2 equivalent from the methane alone.
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is currently 416 ppm.
So the current CO2 equivalent for methane of 152 ppm vs 416 ppm... that's significant if those levels are maintained or continue to rise.
The reason methane is typically ignored is because it essentially turns into CO2 within 10 years or so due to UV from the sun, making it 80 times less of a factor when that happens. But this is only a workable thesis as long as methane emissions are stable or dropping. They are not stable any more and at 1.9ppm (and rising), the continuous impact of the methane is significant.
"For some reason something started happening to methane around 2006..." My first thought is permafrost melt releasing enormous amounts of methane directly into the atmosphere. There are millions of little boiling lakes all over far northern Canada and Siberia bubbling away. Think of all the sequestered dead organic matter suddenly being on the menu for microorganisms all over the arctic tundra as the sun comes out.
I worked on northern Ellesmere island in the summers 2001 - 2014 and the premafrost melt was speeding up. Tundra pckmarked with thousands of craters where the permafrost collapsed the surface, on any aspect, at any altitude. I just saw photos from the Arctic town where I used to live and one bay a few km from town, the hillside has collapsed. When more permafrost melts and the methane hydrates in the ocean volatilize, well yes, there will be a huge global spike in methane.
Did you find any ufos?
Methane hydrates seems like the worst positive feedback to worry about. These hydrates are fragile and contain more C02 than the atmosphere oceans and soil combined.
Is it too scary to address?
@@jfkj1695 No, they were too busy looking for the Loch Ness in the tundra puddles.
When methane spikes, an inevitable cooling cycle begins. Methane is exceedingly more potent and also stays in the atmosphere longer. These events are just part of a larger cycle that we have accelerated by our actions.
@@ApostateApostrophe42276 sorry to bust your misinformed bubble, but these climatic changes are part of a cyclic event effecting our entire solar system. The narrative of it being anthropogenic is little more than a highly lucrative scam! If you really want to do something as an individual/family to help the future of this planet, stop trashing it with a plethera of non-degradeable disposables and stop poisoning it with the ever-increasing array of bleaches and chemicals we flush down our drains every day! Funny how no one seems to give a damn about the REAL problems humanity is causing, the ones they CAN'T profit from!
Finally someone covering glaciation. I have to bring this up a lot. We are in an Interglaciation period, where glaciers are in retreat. Though I think the video fails to note that it is believed that the trend of Ice Ages started roughly 30 million years ago, not 2-3 million. Though over that period we went in and out of Ice Ages, where permanent glaciers were no longer around. So the current Ice Age (which we are still in) started in the 2-3 million year range like you talked about in this video.
I think you are mixing things up here. We are currently in an interglacial, hence it's still getting warmer until we reach peak and THEN enter glacial phase.
@@M0butu
yes, time wise at the beginning, because the warm up happens much faster than the cool down phase, because heat source , the sun is hotter than the temperature of earth, radiating out to space , Stephan Bolzman law, T⁴ relation.
@@M0butu You must have got hung up on my first sentence.
Two sentences later I discussed this.
@@joelt2002 The last Ice Age was the Huronian Ice Age to my knowledge.
Let's toss in the AMOC ocean turnover phenomenon wherein the Gulf Stream stops and everything north of Carolina or Spain freezes to death.
Stephon Milo's great videos have reignited my fascination with paleolithic paleontology. Glad Anton is contributing, too.
"We will all be fine. We are at the top of the food chain, and there's billions of us all over the world."
- Dinosaurs
Something I've been wandering about cattle and their contribution to atmospheric methane; how many domesticated cattle are there compared to the former great herds of bison, buffalo, and other large grazing animals? The buffalo were all but wiped out in North America, the bison greatly reduced in Asia and Europe, and even in Africa the number of wildebeest have been significantly reduced.
Once we know those numbers, we could compare the methane emissions of those animals against the methane emissions of domestic cattle. If those numbers are roughly equal (which I suspect they are), how can we keep yammering on about the danger of cow farts? If the former great herds of grazing animals didn't cause drastic climate change should we really be that concerned about the atmospheric impact of cows?
Fermentation also needs to be factored in .
@@missq3989 Fermentation of what?
@krzysztoftryka399 they always pick on the poor cows . Fermentation of wine and spirits in 2016 12.7 billion tonnes of CO2. You don't see many climate advocates highlighting the carbon footprint of the Distillery industry. My sense of humour is quite dry . I should have stipulated it was a piss take
It seems like you are adding more humorous comments to your presentations. I like it. 👍👍👍👍👍
I've been here since it was What Da Math, Anton has always had a great sense of humor.
It's a barrel of laughs over at Sabine Hossenfelder
He was always humorous, there just was a very sad period in his life where that humour was on pause. Let's hope this is a sign he is healing
Warmer winters, increased rainfall, and longer growing seasons ARE A GOOD THING, if you're not a government seeking an crisis to panic your citizens.
Unless that increased rainfall is just an average that includes both massive drought and monsoon flooding, then you have no growing season.
People being unable to survive at 50 C for five or six days is not so good . and plant yields decrease at warmer temperatures
A long time ago, I read about massive methane hydrate deposits in the ocean, which are held in place by pressure and cold temperatures, the pressure hasn't changed, but the ocean has absorbed 90% of the excess heat so far (very luckily for us). With rising ocean temperatures (I don't know how deep these go though), it makes sense that this is a possible source...
Fascinating! As always Anton....great content. And thank you for still personally narating your videos and not resorting to an AI voiceover.
Text to speech isnt ai. Jfc what is wrong with people's brain-rot. Calling everything that comes out of a computer, ai.
I just had a visit to the doctor. Clean examination and definitely no "brain-rot" discovered. But I do appreciate that constructive criticism from such a distinguished "brain" as yours. one day I will arrive at your level. @@habibishapur
@@habibishapurwhen it’s whole sale mimicking a pre-existing voice patter yes that is machine learning. Calm down
Yeah, well, maybe he should, his speech isn't very clear...
8:54 seems to indicate that melting ice is not human-caused, or at least not related to what we typically call man-made climate change. That is, assuming there’s not some invisible vertical line at the end of the graph. The ice volume is not falling as fast as it did in previous cycles and seems constant. For the individual graphs, it seems like the temperature was lower in the last 10-20 thousand years than there should have been. The one that says “Ice Volume” seems like it is sitting around for as long as the hump from 400 million years ago and sitting around longer than the other humps. If it is man-made, then it must be something simple like agriculture or burning wood and coal. In other words, one thing we will never replace and one thing that is difficult or impossible to replace. The man-made climate change we always hear about is from 200 years ago and onward, from the Industrial Revolution onward. It doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to say the global temperature is warming faster than ever before. We have measurements for only a few hundred years in the past if even that much. The rest would be inferred from methods that probably do not have a resolution of 10 years or even 100 years. How can you compare the rate of change in recent history to the rate of change in the distant past which could have sudden jumps and declines in temperature over a period of a few years which we can’t capture?
What I find amazing is that you say that the Eart stopped freezing 6000 years ago, which is around the same time we as humans started to learn how to write, and around 6000 years before this the other humans stopped existing.
They talk about the Egyptian discovery of the pyramids 6000 years ago also
Yea the further back you go the more capable we seemed to be than suddenly apes than homosapiens odd history
Not so. Gobekli Tepe and another nearby site are over 10,000 years old.
Boys, being able to build and writing are 2 different things, I hope you know that. And 6000 years ago circa is the oldest proof of a writing system we have found so far, maybe in the future we'll find even older traces. But building in general surely dates much further back than writing.
part of the problem with cow farts is. bison numbers. the number of bison now is Dramatically less then 250 years ago. where the estimate number of bison was between 60 to 300 million(hard to count which is why its a estimate) cows are 90 million now. so the average number of cows is prob pretty equal to the number of bison. so blaming the cows looks like a low probability.
What did Bison eat compared to dairy cows and how was that processed differently in their bodies
Hello Anton !! I love your channel, always informative and intriguing...We are never to old to stop learning and being only 74, I look forward to something new everyday that I didn't know the day before. Your common sense approach to the science of our warming planet verses politicizing global warming, brings truth to the subject...Thank you so much !!
When the USA destroyed the Nordstream pipeline that was the biggest single Methane release in history. Up to 155000 tonnes
Glad to see this mentioned. It’s just so curious how the largest environmental disaster in recorded history during a time that the environment is the highest priority is just simply cancelled like its a gas stove in NY.
A+ quality content here. Thanks Anton.
All methane comes from the city sewer lines and no where else
I seem to remember an Anton vid about loads of methane being trapped in the sea floor around Antarctica, which will be released if things get too hot down there - like when the African villages got gassed when the nearby lake "burped" CO2, except more global in effect.
It's not only around Antartica you get frozen methane and it already started melting , not in huge amount but it's happening.
What African villages? What lake? I'd like to know more, please respond.
I agree, the extra methane is likely being released by the giant oceans that cover 70% of the earths surface. That's a gigantic factor. Meanwhile, environmentalists in position of political power are haphazardly attacking any industry that has to do with methane, "oh you can't eat beef anymore, those cow farts are going to destroy the earth" Making policy based on wild guesses when in reality this is all way out of our control, an inconsistent sun interacting with 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water
@@aitoluxd Lake Nyos. The Lake 'Exploded' killing about 1700 people.
@@Kito-Anime-Arena I wonder how many lakes worldwide have the potential to do this?
Nice video. I'm from Canada and there has been lots of discussion that melting permafrost is resulting in large emissions of methane. A study from Sweden found that the expected rise was only 1/10 of what was expected..
Thank you, Anton. Your videos are useful, compared to the ocean of junk on media platforms
I'm sure the possibility of a positive feedback cycle in the permafrost fields of Siberia and other areas of the world have been taken into account in the studies.
The least expected thing to happen is the reduction of human population to 10 million people.
ha ha ha ha ha ...............................ha ha ha ha...........what a comedian
@@roberto4898you must be a Bill Gates fan.
@@stankomalceski9677 and apart of being a completely shady person, What's wrong with Bill Epstein?
The latest IPCC report doesn't include many feedback loops (if any?), because you would be called alarmist, so they will be added after they are in effect, which is useless, because it's a feedback loop, which doesn't stop after tipping point.
Also Methane clathrates hypothesis is a good read.
I read a discover article years ago that mentioned methane hydrates on the ocean floor, and that as the ocean warms (thereby reducing the pressure holding some of the methane down), methane ‘burps’ can become more frequent and release more methane like a self reinforcing feedback loop. Also I recall climate scientist and ASU professor guy macpherson has mentioned this as well
Guy is a biologist
Yup. It's been implicated in the Permian-Triassic extinction.
@@1lightheadeddude's also a crank
It's like God puts the earth on freezer defrost cycle. Anton, you're amazing! Thank you.
Wow! Great show Anton. You presented scientific data without injecting political views. You are a wonderful person.
Look up dane wigington asap
@@jzsbff4801 You must be a liberal.
@@AldousHuxley7hes a biden lover. Election is coming up. They wanna smear ban and harass as many people as possible. They love mass killer Biden. They love the decline of our country.
@@AldousHuxley7 bro if i farting so hard my belly hurting
@@jzsbff4801hello liberal
Thank you so much for a clear scientific explanation of the known factors and unknown factors. I thought according to Earth's orbit we should be typing into an ice age. This is fascinating stuff.
Improvise, adapt, overcome.
It's the human way!
This data can really help!!
According to earth orbit we are tipping into an ice age? Is there anyone outside a "specific" bubble believing this?
Another excellent video, thanks Anton.
It's nice to hear someone talk about this topic without dragging politics into it! Thank you!
One of the biggest emitters of methane is in the Siberian tundra where there is an estimated 10,000 gigatons of frozen methane hydrate that is thawing out. Usually in explosive form making really interesting craters.
And this methane doesn't "disintegrate" as a result of insolation, it oxidizes to water vapor and carbon dioxide which still contributes to warming if not to the same degree.
Naw, that's just Ivan's outhouse exploding after a bit too much Borscht & striking a match. ;) j/k of course! Yeah the craters exploding methane deposits make in the tundra are really something else. There are also areas where it outgasses without a real explosion. There was an event where a herd of several dozen to hundreds of animals were found as though they'd simply dropped dead on the spot. They seemed to have died from asphyxiation after remaining a mysterious occurrence for a couple of years.
That is a colossal amount of methane, wtf.
@@Stampedby__bonetti That's one incredibly large fart. Makes you wonder why they're so worried about farting cows? Incidentally there's an icy cave that was dug into the tundra in Alaska that has a lot of animal remains in it. More than that though is that it is almost entirely made up of dead plant matter & animal excrement that had begun to decay, building up gasses, then froze for whatever reason.
I sincerely wish scientists could come up with a working model of why so many examples of megafauna seem to have flash frozen with food in their mouths & stomachs that exist in completely different climates. The hypothesis of the asteroid or comet that caused the Younger Dryas event would explain all of the strange caves we find completely cram packed with dismembered corpses of megafauna, foliage & mud. Still it doesn't account for a flash freeze event.
@@Stampedby__bonetti there's more on the ocean floor but no one's talking about this
I want them to put the thermometer back to their pre 1960 position and calibration. No more measuring at the asphalt airports and calling it hotter.
Check Nullschool sea surface temp anomaly for a reliable picture.
Nice knowing ya'll, wonderful people!
Venus here we come.
Three more human cycles then Earth will resemble Mars according to well informed sources.
"we don't really know what's happening" ... but we DO ... the historical charts show the pattern.
I so respect the integrity of your work. Thank you.
They found small lakes in Alaska with methane bubbling up out of them. It was a PBS documentary a few months ago. They lit one on fire. Too bad they can't capture it and use it for fuel.
Anton did mention tundra briefly, but apparently the main source of the current rise in methane is because of the foliage decay in the increasingly warmer African wetlands.
So it is human made, got it
did you listen? He said the wetlands produce the methane, but the wetlands have grown in size Due to human driven climate change. @@gerrickhan
@@gerrickhanCan you keep up?
@@gerrickhanyou didn't understand this video did you 😅
@@dylanholm9995really gobbling on that propaganda government cawk are you
I "love" the helpful "Climate change" definition provided by TH-cam from the United Nations. Short on science, long on politics.
Great video! I appreciate your sense of humor. I will probably also have to “buy a bigger fan.” 😅
The Arctic circle is releasing massive methane stores from permafrost melting. There have been multiple massive explosions and craters left in their wake in recent years. Also, methane has started boiling up through lakes in Alaska. Cows do have a huge effect, but ultimately we cannot stop the permafrost melt 😅
Cows lawl
How did the millions of bison previously roaming the plains not have the same effect?
Well just cool the planet down, and the perma frost melt will end.
@@sanniepstein4835
While i also don’t think it’s the cows I would point out that bison ate wild grass and cows are largely fed Corn, Milo, and other food that makes them bigger but they cannot digest as well. So those cows do fart more.
But just a fart in the winds worth😉
The permafrost thawing and releasing massive amounts of methane, causing a break-away reinforcement loop, was something scientists were warning about 10 years ago already with maths and everything. It's just ridiculous that we can literally observe this happening now and still people have the gall to state that its all a big mystery.
Personally I think there is a lot of Copium and Hopium in the whole "it takes a very long time for the climate to change". People used to believe that the continents don't move. We know they can move and quite a bit. There is a good reason why every civilization has a Flood apocalypse in their religion/culture.
the geological record shows temperature changes of several degrees virtually overnight. am I'm not talking geological overnight, I'm talking months/years not 1000s to millions.
Everyone always talks about global warming and the damage us humans have caused but never about the cyclical warming the earth would have done even if we weren't here
Yeah, because it's inconvenient for the climate scam to keep going.
You can’t tax the Earth but you can tax people.
Well if you read any of the studies on it you would know that is patently untrue. The point is our contributions are rapidly and irreversibly affecting natural processes.
@@adsdfadfs irreversibly? Good, so no point in f*cking everyone with BS climate policies
As far as source for the methane, have you considered the 2 Gigatons of methane clathrates (hydrate) found beneath the permafrost and in the oceans below 300m?
dude, no. stop it, get some help.
cow farts.
@@wallacewilliams535 are you psychotic or raetarded? the meat industry as primary transportation and mass production/consumption is what initiates the melting of the permafrost which will now be making you extinct
thats what i commented on too pretty obvious most methane comes from the oceans
Isn't it coming out as the permafrost recedes? That's what I thought. Just accelerating it.
I heard that too and was about to ask the same question. How high is the contribution from permafrost areas thawing and releasing methane?
Keep coping
The primary feedback agent involved in ice age modulation is DUST, not CO2. It is the deposition of dust just before every interglacial, that lowers the albedo of the northern ice sheets and allows additional insolation absorption and melting. And every interglacial is preceded by 10,000 years of dust.
But how is that dust suddenly formed.? Interestingly, it is due to CO2 becoming so low that the Gobi region is turned into a shifting-sand CO2 desert. Without CO2, all plant life on the Gobi is extunguished. This is confirmed by the strata in the Loess Plateau.
Thus is in LOW CO2 that is the feedback agent that assists and causes interglacial warming. It is an elegant theory that explains every facet of ice age modulation.
See paper:
‘Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks’.
Doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.04.004
Ralph
@@curiositycloset2359 Cope these nuts
@@RalphEllisInteresting! That would explain some of the pre-industrial shifts we see in glacial climate cycles, but how is that relevant to what is currently going on? This current warming event is not a natural one.
Methane in the permafrost in Sibera is opening up thousands upon thousands of sinkholes because the permafrost is thawing and all the methane from the trapped decayed matter is finally escaping. That's where most of the methane is coming from.
There are two contributors to increased methane which I can think of. The first is that increasing amounts of it are being released from areas where it was formerly locked down in areas covered with permafrost. The second is in shallow oceans and gulfs where, during cooler times, it stays in a frozen or liquid state. A lot of methane has recently volatilized in the Gulf of Mexico owing to record high water temperatures there, which has caused it to leave its frozen and liquid state, and enter its gas state. As the warming trend continues, you can expect even more of it to be released from both sources. These are only two of the possible sources. There are likely other sources which I have not mentioned and don't know about. I would guess that the release comes from the aggregate of many different smaller sources combining to make one, much larger whole. We won't be able to finger one source because at present, there are many sources for the increase in methane. Whereas our activity has been one of the leading causes of the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere, our activity is a smaller piece of the pie when it comes to methane.
Biological cycles are another huge one. The reason that ponds and bogs have so much trapped methane in the first place is because of the biochemical activity of anaerobic bacteria, which metabolize all kinds of organic matter and excrete methane as waste (in addition to carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and others depending on the type of bacteria). The muck at the bottom of a warm lake or swamp and the thick low-oxygen environment of a peat bog are ideal conditions for anaerobic bacteria. But this is only part of the surrounding environment; the layers above are usually full of oxygen and suitable for animal life. This is the crucial fact: When its temperature increases, oxygen is less soluble in water. So there is a delicate temperature range, not too cold and not too hot, that allows this balance of aerobic and anaerobic zones in any healthy lake or wetland to be sustained. Above a certain temperature, the entire body of water up to the surface will not be able to hold on to dissolved oxygen, eventually becoming anoxic and killing most of the complex life, but leaving the anaerobic bacteria to convert all that dead carbon into greenhouse gases which just as easily escape. So emitted CO₂ levels still stay similar for a while-doesn't matter whether it's from an animal or from bacteria-but methane skyrockets. You can imagine how millions of these “methane bоmbs” going off around the world at the same time might alter global temperatures enough to create a positive feedback loop.
Appreciate and thank you for your honesty - "No one really knows what is going on". Man trying to outguess or control nature is pure ignorance with a large ego.
One thing I think could be happening too. Retreating permafrost. There is a lot of methane trapped under it across the nothern hemisphere. . As it melts its releasing the methane back in to the atmosphere.
Edit. Oops. Didn't read the top comment
The largest stockpile of decaying organic matter with the potential to explain the numbers just so happens to be somewhere we cant go. The bottom of the ocean is huge and largely unexplored.
I'm always surprised at those who are brave enough to point to natural earth cycles as a better explanation for the changing climate. Makes more sense anyway, when you look into the times that earth was much warmer before industry took hold.
I'm always surprised how people like you manage to completely ignore what's being said and just make up shit which is the exact opposite of what's being said.
This content extremely enriches me. Thank you from the deepest of my heart
What about all the methane currently frozen in permafrost that will be released as the permafrost melts - like in the Mackenzie Delta?
the ocean
I concur.
Siberia's waaaaay bigger
Nothing we can do about it.
That's what I was going to bring up.
When you figure out the hype of carbon heating the world is BS, due to carbon blocking radiance from sol, then one should realize it is methane that helps heat the world. We need more atmospheric carbon to save us from methane.
Methane immediately begins oxidizing back into carbon dioxide and water when it comes into contact with oxygen.
This process takes approximately 9 years and 7 months.
That is the carbon cycle in action.
When the carbon dioxide accumulates, it is absorbed into the ocean and large rock formations.
That is sequestration.
I would like to thank Anton for pointing out the long-term climate.
It is the current Pleistocene or Quaternary glaciation.
This is a periodic pulse in the longer term Neogene ice age that began in the mid Oligocene epoch.
It is marked by the appearance of the Antarctic ice sheet.
The Greenland ice sheet became permanent 18 million years ago in the early Miocene.
But, the geologic record indicates that Greenland has gained and completely lost its ice sheet several times between 56 million years ago and 33 million years ago.
Earth has heated up and cooled off thousands of times in the very recent past.
Super interesting, thank you. But around 9:40 you are actually confusing the terms ice age and glacial period. Ice age is the period where the polar caps are iced, there were 4-5 total. Glacial and interglacial periods are a pattern of colder/warmer climate _within_ the current ice age. So you are gonna have interglacial period that will still have polar ice caps.
That's what he said
@@xmathmanxno, he speaks about we are still in an ice age period, because there are polar ice fields still. This is not true, we are not in an ice age phase anymore for around 10000 years already. Also the study cited refers to glacial termination, not ice age termination.
@@EverydayRoadster we are in fact currently in an ice age, it is easy to look that up
@@xmathmanx "We do expect Earth to warm up ... Remember, this is still ice age. And because we still have polar ice sheets we are still technically in the glaciation period that's turning into interglacial period". This is incorrect. First, he ties the arrival of the interglacial period with polar ice sheets melting, but interglacial period has nothing to do with them. Both glacial and interglacial periods have ice (the question is just about the amount), because we are continuing living in an ice age. Second, yes, earth will warm up at some point and we will leave the ice age, meaning that the poles will unfreeze, but it has nothing to do with any of the dynamics of glaciation he is talking about with respect to that paper.
Also, from what I understand, we've been in an interglacial period for quite a long time (in fact we owe the rise of human civilization to that fact), and the paper seems to be using a delicate phrasing that the current increase in methane is _comparable_ to a termination event, rather than calling it a termination event.
@@george-by oh jeez I can't communicate with you
I really like the fact that you include the graphs clearly - I can pause and look at them. Great video as always, very informative.
Multiple things
1) Methane release from permafrost
2) Albedo change (less ice, and trees rather than tundra)
3) Methane clathrate release
Suddenly there's a lot more greenhouse gas potential, for a while at least, but the albedo change acts to make it much more potent.
We could be in for a lot of change this century.
The lower albedo of trees cool the planet, via transpiration, and conversion of electromagnetic energy into mass (sugar) The proof of this is the higher albedo of Urban areas, but these areas are always a few degrees warmer than the surrounding wooded regions. (urban heat islands) Suburbs also increase albedo, but just the opposite, we see a higher temperature result... (entire heat regions) ... not that more reflected short wave light into space does not make a difference? It does!!! But the difference is trees.
I wonder how all this permafrost will impact fashion & clothing. I guess we'll have to wait for NY Fall Fashion Week.
😢 it's over, can't stand every summer getting hotter.
Thank You Anton, for making things a bit more understandable!
Its best not to even think of these things, its out of our hands, Its the worst thing about being human, we focus on all this crap we can't control, and let the way we think about it control our lives, it leads to a lot of good outcomes too though
Can't stop people from replacing God with themselves and thinking they have more power and control than they do.
Presumably you don't turn your central heating off in the summer because 'it's out of our hands'?