CORRECTIONS So this video was quite rushed because I wanted to get it out in time for the #teamtrees launch. Here are a couple of things I got wrong: Not ALL coal was made during the carboniferous period. There exists some younger coal here and there that formed under rare conditions that enabled it in spite of the presence of capable fungi. I did film myself saying that but it was lost it my rushed edit. Photosynthesis is more complicated than I described. It involves water for a start. And it seems that the oxygen released during photosynthesis comes from the H₂O not the CO₂. Though I haven't be able to verify that. And here's a non-correction! The thing I was holding up at the start was *not* charcoal. It was a coal dust briquette. You could argue that the briquette was made recently but the coal it's made of is old! So yeah, the thrust of the video still stands but it's been a learning opportunity for me! A final thought on planting trees for carbon capture. A lot of comments saying "what's the point? When the trees die the decomposers will release the CO₂ back into the atmosphere. But really this is more about planting *forests*. In a forest, when a tree dies, another tree grows in its place recapturing the carbon. But also, it's my understanding that it takes a very long time to release the CO₂. Like hundreds of years. So in terms of tackling climate change which is a problem of human time scales, it's a useful endeavour.
They have found a hat that turned to coal after 80 years. This was DUG OUT of a previous mine collapse. And they have created coal in a few years in a lab.
There actually already exist a bacteria that can do that. It is called Ideonella sakaiensis. It was discovered in Japan in 2016. I don't know much more about it. But i'm guessing it's pretty rare and in small amounts. Hopefully we can learn to multiply it.
i believe there that been a few that have been engineered and/or discovered or something. But we don't necessarily want them to be wide spread because we don't want plastics to be decompose. Yes it would be great to deal with the land fills and the thrash in the ocean but It would suck to have to buy a new pen every ten days because it's rotting away and it stinks (and every two days in the summer because its hot)
The entire reason we use plastics is *because* they don’t decompose. The second something that does becomes widespread, we will switch to something else.
A common misconception that you included is that plants split CO2 into carbon and oxygen, while they actually split water and bind the hydrogen to the CO2 to create sugar and release the left-over oxygen from the water into the air.
@@st0rm-xx The amount of atoms in a molecule is defined after its type. H2O means there are two hydrogen atoms and only one oxygen atom present. Carbon Dioxide has two oxygen atoms per carbon atom and is thus written as CO2.
Hello, and good day! The theory presented here has been mostly abandoned by experts a few years before you published this video. I greatly appreciate your videos, and recently I watched your 2019 video on the Carboniferous coal production peak. It presents a very compelling and persuasive story, dating as best I can tell all the way back to a 1990 paper, that explains the coal production peak by a lag between the evolution of lignin production in plants and the evolution of lignin degradation in fungi. That hypothesis was bolstered in 2010 by a Science paper which used the molecular clock to estimate the evolution of white-rot Agaricomycetes, the main known lineage with lignin degradation ability, to the early Permian, right at the end of the Carboniferous. However, that hypothesis has been mostly abandoned after a 2016 PNAS paper questioned it on several grounds: - the low lignin content of some of the most important Carboniferous peat-forming plants: lycopsid bark is very abundant in Carboniferous coal, yet it contains no lignin, - periods when lignin was abundantly produced do not correspond to observed peaks in coal production, - coal accumulation peaks seem to reflect local environmental conditions, not the lignin content of the plant material, - Carboniferous fossil wood often does exhibit signs of fungal decay, - while lignin-degrading peroxidases do seem to have appeared in the Early Permian, other less effective lignin-degrading enzymes do exist which seem to have evolved as far back as the Devonian (420-359 Ma), effectively closing the gap between lignin production(∼420 Ma) and lignin degradation evolution, - massive coal deposits have been formed during the Permian, after the evolution of lignin degradation by white-rot Agaricomycetes, - furthermore, if the gap hypothesis was correct, the lack of lignin degradation and subsequent carbon burial should have led to the depletion of atmospheric carbon in a much shorter time than the proposed 120 Ma Carboniferous gap. Rather, the Carboniferous peak is explained by the abundance of equatorial wetlands, which maximize productivity while minimizing decay thanks to waterlogged anoxic ground. Crucially, this accumulation is sustained thanks to the continued subsidence of the ground (ie, the ground sinks) caused by the formation of the Pangea: the collision of continental tectonic plates led to buckling of the crust, creating basins where the ground slowly sink, being filled all the while by sediments charged with organic plant matter, which eventually formed coal.
Excellent comment. Let us not overlook that atmospheric chemistry has evolved with time and associated oxygen levels too. Many environmental conditions become anoxic which favors preservation of organics, both today and in deep time. I was a geology intern at Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Co. back in the days when the coal was still forming ...
_"a Science paper"_ - I'm guessing you are referring to a paper in the journal Science? Could you please provide authors and date so we can see the study ourselves?
@@unlokia Sad that people still buy into these bs stories as they've so called been proven by "science". Just look into the Australian professor Peter Ridd his case and the way his university was trying to do their utter best to censor him, but luckily their plan backfired and the court's ruling might be a big game changer IF enough people get to know it that is. And it's up to us to spread it, because mainstream media won't, so please look into it and spread the word!
@@robertquartly5866 I love geological time "It all happened at the same time" = it happened over a time period more than 60 times the period humans have existed
Maybe it's something to do with the Subduction process. This occurs in the Earth's crust where one tectonic plate is pushed under an adjacent plate, forming a geological feature known as an Arc-trench complex. Lithosphere is continuously recycled into the Earth's mantle, which may explain a shift in the sedimentary layer that coal and anthracite are discovered. Only a guess...!
You can find out why all the different theory’s by subscribing to Creation research Channel, watch coal form in a week or so, watch strata form in minutes on video called The rocks cry out , layers and liars, watch their videos on coal, and you will see how absurd all the different theory’s are, trees with no roots or branches are found all over the world, trees that couldn’t have survived in swamps, And check out where there museum is in Queensland, massive area 7 times the size of England covered by fossilised trees, generally going one direction, far greater than a “ local Flood, “. Also worth watching video called boomerangs to Babel, interesting that “ throwing sticks” were in Egypt and India before Australian boomerangs, explains why University studies show that Australian Aborigines languages are only 4000 years old.
Read up on The Great Dying (or watch videos) -- the worst mass extinction in Earth's history. It's believed that much of it was caused by volcanic activities igniting massive coal seams resulting in sulfuric acid condensing as morning fog over much of the planet!!
@@ohasis8331 Well I haven't researched this yet, but that doesn't sound right at all to me. iirc, coal is some 60-80% carbon and the rest mostly hydrogen. I believe that wood is largely oxygen (by mass). Most of the moisture will be lost, the remaining material compressed, not sure about the other chemical processes, but 64:1 sounds really low. EDIT: Did a little research and wow! That's a lot of complex processes! (Well, several complex processes.) Haven't found info on wood to coal mass yet though. Would love if you could post a link on the 64:1 number.
@@i.i.iiii.i.i robably the fact rotting flesh and plants don't tend to stick around long out in the open and occurs much less often in the wild, noah's flood perfectly explains how we got all the coal and oil we have by rapid burial, any other explanation is wishful thinking and desperation.
@@dojinho... I know that these fucking so called "experts" are nothing of the sort. You can go back to the early 1900's, and look at all the times these idiots have alternated between warning us of global cooling and global warming. Before the 1930's, they were concerned about global cooling. In the 1930's, which was the warmest decade in recorded history, they told us we had 10 years to stop the "irreversible effects of global warming"... Lol. Sound familiar? I remember in the 1970's listening to all this talk about global cooling, and a possible "mini ice age". Then they went back to global warming again in the 80's. Every ten years we get some idiot telling us we "only have 10 years". The UN warned us in 1989, yet again, we only had a decade to stop global warming. Well 30 years have gone by since that warning, and we are still here. In 2007 Al Gore said the sea ice was going to be gone by 2020, and possibly as early as 2014, and that the polar bears were going extinct. Also that the sea level was going rise and flood places like NY city. Now here it is 2019, and we have more sea ice than we did in 2007, and the polar bear populations have increased. Also, the sea level hasn't risen and NY is still here. Yet here we go again, with idiots like AOC telling people we only have a decade and that this is "our WW2". Proving that bartenders shouldn't be elected to congress. Idiots keep telling us we have 10 years, which we've heard over and over again since the beginning of the LAST century, and morons listening to them. Let me ask you this; if these idiots knew what they were talking about, why are they wrong about their predictions far more than they are right? Why didn't anyone predict the 18 years, where there was NO rise in temperature, which they now call "the pause"? Why did several climatologists get caught changing data, because what was actually happened didn't agree with their predictions? You see, real scientists would NEVER change data to make their hypothesis correct. That's not science. That is politics. So yes, I understand climate change VERY WELL.
@@thomasfleig1184 Yeah, you're argument is pure bullshit. Not that you care to get educated. Science is science. I don't give a rats arse what media says about science -- that's often wrong. There was no "global cooling scare" -- that's bullshit. You're attempting to compare early scientific speculation with decades of mature, peer-reviewed, solid FACTS! There's nothing wrong with early speculation -- we have to *find* something interesting to study before we start a study. But don't fking call that science -- that's bullshit.
@@thomasfleig1184 @Thomas Fleig Too bad you don't use all that mental energy to take a sober look at the facts instead of trying to baffle us with bullshit.
As a kid I always wondered why fossil fuels are limited and never got a sufficient answer.. it seems over time I just accepted it and forgot I was wondering about it. Thanks for reminding me that I was once curious. glad u corrected yourself about photosynthesis :)
It's very rare that I learn something radically new on TH-cam, but this clip did it. When I went to school (admittedly way back), we still learnt that coal was made when the conditions were just right, meaning that large swaths of plant matter became trapped underground (in swamps and whatnot). That was, at the time, the only circumstance where it could be explained that decomposition couldn't happen. But once you think about it, the other condition where decomposition can't happen is just what this video explains. This made my day, because another element of the world has now become much better explained. I always had a nagging feeling that there seems to be far too much fossil fuel in the ground for the original explanation to make (complete) sense. Now it finally does -- thank you :D !!!
@@solalflechelles1216 Thank you for sharing the article. It's really fascinating and fairly accessible as well. While I am sorry that the video is wrong, it also serves as a good example of the nature of advancing scientific understanding, and how paradigms shift. The other thing that's at the core of the video, though, is about how the carbon in fossil fuels was a limited resource formed over geologic periods of time, and our consumption of it is thus also bounded. That conclusion is supported by the article you linked as well.
Except for the fact that coal was found at a 2000 year old village that had collapsed. This coal was formed from wood of one of the buildings that fell into a sinkhole. The pressure from the weight of ground collapsing on it plus moisture and heat from the surrounding hot springs caused the coal to form. It was only 2k years old. That finding is what originally led us to making it in an oven now.
Not true, there are huge coal deposits all over the world that have never been tapped or only slightly. Example is the coal in N and S Dakota, there's one pstch 100 foot thick that is over 200 miles across that I worked at, after 90 years of mining (open pit) they've just removed a square mile or so. Look up "interactive visualization of coal data" for example to see how much there is in the US alone.
coal was consumed by the Romans 2000 years ago and by the Chinese 5500 years ago. Today we aren't remotely close to exhausting world coal supplies. You're repeating the 'we're running out of resources' myths you were brainwashed with at school.
In fact, coal has been formed over a great range of time. The oldest coal dates from the Precambrian and was formed from deposits of organic material 3 billion years ago. It was formed from an offshore layer of algae at the mouth of an ancient river delta. Over time, dead algae built up on the sea bottom and was then buried under flood deposits of silt. The youngest coal dates from the Eocene, fifty million years ago and is characterized as soft coal deposited in the subtropical forests of ancient Germany.
3 billion years Steven? 50 million years Steven? You're living in cloud cuckoo land. Who told ( taught ) you those numbers? Can we have some scientific validation of these rediculous time spans please.
@@colvinator1611 lol how are those timespans ridiculous at all? You're off your rocker colin, carbon dating makes telling how old coal is as simple as testing it and studying the land from where it came from tells you why it's found there. Oh I forgot the earth and everything on it was created 6000 years ago by sky daddy.
@@colvinator1611 Not to be mean, and because I do understand the skepticism, I searched for some basic resources online briefly. Lignite is relatively new coal in most cases, forming without the same levels of deep pressure and high temperature, and its youth is attributable to the correct conditions to prevent decay, in waterlogged basins with acid formations in the peat like substrate allowing for the buildup of carbon from previously living things. This video explains part of why coal is so prevalent in this short time period, but of course geologists can spend their entire undergrad years focusing on the subject, instead of watching a 6 minute TH-cam video.
Another fun fact that I'm paraphrasing from one of my other favorite youtube channels, PBS Eons: The Environmental pressure that originally caused the ancestors of trees to grow so tall was all that undecomposed matter lying around. It got so deep over time it blocked out access to the sun for plants trying grow on the ground! So over time, trees got taller and taller in an effort to retain access to sunlight!
Jesse H. What about higher carbon dioxide (what plants breath) being higher back then? That makes plants go crazy, look up some videos on it there are some super cool experiments with plants growing super big
PBS is not educational... It's mostly nonscientific garbage. CO2 levels being high causes Plants to grow faster, taller and produce more fruits. It's a well established fact, and it also causes the Water level in the ground to not deplete as fast because it lowers the amount of water that trees waste when there is higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
@@livedandletdie but also not all plants grow the same and not all fruit bearing plants grow the same. although they all tend to stick to a rule it can be completely different for some. c02 can only do so much and pouring in higher and higher levels doesn't just equate directly to more and more, as that would be classed as a miracle. preperation techniques and methods of whatever to maintain water run off or water logging and the addition and prevention of minerals and nutrition leaving the soil before the fruit has bared etc, different environments cause different things like water evaporation even how much water is available and temperature drops, some plants dont like to bare in certain temperatures or conditions, much like cherries they tend to halt growing in the span they do if it rains heavily on the tree and the weight puts pressure and stress into the stems and branches and apparently halts the growth, look it up they use helicopters to blow the water off the tree using its propeller thrust from above. all im trying to get at is while c02 is vital its not the only thing that decides the fate of the said plant or fruit. just like water for us, if we drink too much it can infact actually kill us.
The Major do I understand you correctly that your hypothesis is “higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 correlate with taller trees, and the mechanism is CO2 promoting taller growth, and that is sufficient to explain ever taller forests during the Carboniferous period”? I want to make sure I correctly understand what you are saying, so if I’ve mischaracterized anything please correct me.
Total missunderstood fact, that's what's happening in every forest, every tree wants to grow taller so it has more acces to the sun light. It's an endless cycle where CO2 grown because of fires and other factors, the globe becomes wormer so there are more BIG trees, then they produce too much oxygen that creates bigger animals just like in the carboniferous period, huge toads, then snowglobe and not that many plants, oxygen lowers and the cycle starts again. Amen.
Seen your correction about planting trees, yes trees or forests are a storage not really converters, it means that as soons as the forest has a stable size it's not taking anything anymore (in fact it still is but it will take a very small part that will end up forerver trapped in the soil). Yes we can think that it takes a lot of time to have a new forest of stable size but it still is a storage and not a converter, it's adressing a flux issue with a stock solution if you see what I mean. That beeing said it could be possible to find better solution than forests using plants that would more work like converters than storage, or even possible to engineer some.
Charcoal briquettes contain coal as well as other fossil based ingredients. Invevented in 1919 by Henry Ford and manufactured under the name Kingsford.
Which should warn you of the likely incorrect material in this presentation. Read a mining engineer text or geologist text and this one layer worldwide falls apart. His presentation is to get you to contribute to his activist PAC. He could just have easily scammed you by saying it all happened in a worldwide flood that Noah survived, or when an asteroid hit burning the Earth.
@@lolaice8959 But I've handled coal. It's hard and shiny and doesn't leave as much black on your hands as charcoal does. In the video that looks like charcoal. Not that it makes much difference, the guy is pushing his agenda and soliciting money.
Another thing that came to mind to me years ago was that wood is sugar. It's just that very few things can break the bond of the sugars. The b=name gives away that it's sugar; cellulose. If it ends in "ose", it's very likely sugar.
I wonder how forests look like with all this dead trees stack on each other, how tall this stacks was, and how new trees can grow when everything was obstructed by dead trunks.
I'm pretty sure there would be almost no dead trunk. The only thing bacteria won't digest is the lignin, but all the other structures would be, everything would be turned into a powder and mixed into the ground and end up compressed when more and more things pile on top of it, the ground would be getting even higher, things would just grow at the top. It's just dirty as usual, with a thin veil of humus. There are also other things happening, like fires Fire would turn the lignin protein into a soap, ever tried to cook wood? just try, you'll have your answer. common sense is useless for science.
There is a rock formation in my province in an area called drumheller, the rock is about 66-67 million years old and has a quite a bit of coal in it, enough that it used to be mined. It’s very cool that most of the worlds coal was formed at the same time, but definitely not all of it. Great video and I’m glad your on this project!
Our "Gretas" here don't care about such small differences. "Climate chance is an actual problem" our smart leader says in the video .... and boys, THAT'S the message of this video.
as a todler my grandfather threw me in the coalshed on the balcony when lying there i saw a diamond in one of the coals so beautifull colors, long time i thought i imagined it untill i learned in school that they are made of the same substance so it made sence. ;)
@@tamjansan1154 No, it will take a long, long, long time for plant life on this planet to re-fix carbon into living tissue by taking up CO2 in the air. Millions of years. All that burned coal was buried, fossilized wood...there isn't enough surface area on the Earth, nor enough temperate zones, to turn the released CO2 back into wood and just have massive forests again.
Oh my God this has been the most recurring question of the entirety of my childhood , year and year again these teachers told me the the coal started forming millions of years ago and I can't figure out why oh why does that make it limited
Then don't listen to this guy blind. There are three distinct layers hundreds of millions of years apart in North America. There are small truths in this presentation, but the overall thesis is wrong out of the gate. There are mining scientists as geologists you may wish to check out first. Oh school teachers often have a only a surface knowledge of any one subject, unless they are passionate about a particular subject. Then they may have studied it on their own or watched crap money grab con jobs like this.
@@STho205 - Although I agree that there are inaccuracies in Steve's presentation, you are being unnecessarily harsh in your commenting. One thing I'm sure of, Steve is no 'money-grab con job'. I agree about teachers though....
@@Deebz270 #tree whatever is trying to raise money to pay their staff to talk and travel. I like trees too. Most do. If presenting a case *they don't have to lie* . When people present such obvious inaccuracies as "science in media" then it causes people to distrust other "science in media". This was ham handed at best.
@@Deebz270 "Although I agree that there are inaccuracies" Coal mines in USA are mostly open-pit type but for example in my country(Poland) you have mines like "Budryk" where they diging coal from 1290m(4232 feet) below surface... so what part of this video is not misleading? It is sci-fi from the begining to the end...
I have a 100 and something year old friend whose father was a superior for the National Coal Board in Sheffield. Her father was able to taste coal and tell which seem it was, it was a part of his training. A interesting combination of your recent videos.
4:53 wont help unless after they're grown we cut them and bury them so they can become coal algae would be much better for this since they grow much faster you would still need to stop aerobic respiration and methanogenesis for them to become a carbon sink
Well, it’s not supposed to gain us, so much as to the future.. for now, we’re fine, however future humans probably won’t be, and because of this, we can help them a bit
@@pluto8404 An asteroid is way more likely to hit mars than the Earth. And if we can terraform Mars, it's difficult to imagine a catastrophe on Earth that we can't recover from.
As long as the tree stays alive, it will continue to be a carbon sink. And if you think about it, deforestation also helps create the sink, because wood use in books and furniture doesn't re-enter the atmosphere for a much longer time. We need to fix carbon emissions really quickly (but based on the rate of solar cell progress, especially in perovskites, I think we'll manage). If the tree lives 50-100 years before decomposing or burning, technology will have progressed to the point that the newly released CO2 isn't pivotal. Or we'll have damaged the environment irreversibly and further damage would be pretty much irrelevant.
Hi there, in Geological terms...60 million years is nothing more than a small percentage. Even though to us, it seems like forever.....Peace to my friend.
@@1320crusier Hi there, i think i upset some people with my post, but at least you seem to know what you are talking about...probably more than me. When i read the earth is 3000 yrs old, 65 million yrs old, Flat ?...i just can't even respond to that...thank you for your reply....Peace.
@DivinexDragoonxRising Do you have a particular reason for thinking that? Doing a quick surface search on google isn't bringing anything to the contrary up.
DivinexDragoonxRising @pmg @divinexdragoonxrising well if it costs the Arbor Day Foundation (the biggest tree planters in the world) $1 to plant a tree, then there’s no way ecosia makes $1 per search, especially if they don’t collect your data. Google doesn’t make anything near $1 per search, and they take every piece of data that exists on you
I`m so proud I`ve planted trees since age of 7 and at age 69 still doing it like taking trees and seeds to the shores of artificial lakes here in patagonia and I do it for free, I encourage everyone to do it to save the planet for our offspring
@@vanlendl1 so true..there is only one small rare shrub that uses the type of carbon that bidens 2.2 BILLION POUNDS OF IT THAT HE SPEWED FROM HIS ONE TRIP TO THE CANCELED EARLY POPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING!!! MORE CARBON THAN A MEDIUM SIZE TOWN MAKES IN ONE YEAR!!!
Another "fun fact" - all of those trees dying (and not decomposing) during the Carboniferous era also produced the highest level of atmospheric oxygen - about 35 percent. (Now it's about 20 percent). This is also how insects grew to such gigantic sizes at that time. And, regarding a comment someone made about how planting trees NOW won't eliminate all of that carbon now being released by our coal burning - um....the other part of the "solution", in addition to planting trees,... is to STOP BURNING COAL.
Another fun fact, all the water on earth is billions of years old, it just gets recycled. Meaning that that glass of water you drank used to be dinosaur piss.
I doubt many people know that about coal. At least i didn't. Always love science or natural phenomena explained in such simple and engaging manner. Keep spreading the knowledge and more importantly the curiosity and enthusiasm Steve.
Trees consume a relatively small amount of co2. Its the oceans that absorb most co2. Sea life consumes co2 and when it dies it sinks to the bottom of the ocean
Right, it comes to mind when looking at the huge mass of all limestone mountain ranges. They're so abundant and all formed in part from CO2 in the seas.
Um... ok, sure. But what is your point? Is is insanely easier to plant trees compared with attempting to engineer ocean ecosystems that absorb carbon at a higher rate than the base line.
I know that this seems like a naive question, but what actually is the benefit of planting all these trees? I realise that the trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the affect of global warming, but there are many mitigating factors. I have read that trees in temperate regions do not help at all because the increased light absorption from the trees negates the reduction in CO2, and that this is also true of trees in many colder regions, as trees can absorb light that would otherwise be reflected by snow. Furthermore, planting trees can release carbon stored in the soil and the previous plant life, further negating the positives of planting the trees. On top of this, the trees are not a long term solution because once they die, almost all of the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere, rendering the ordeal useless. I can see that planting trees, if done right, could provide a small amount of short term relief, and that if the forest was sustained indefinitely, it could continue to provide that relief. It just seems to me that a far more effective solution is to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels. Once we take carbon which has been locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years and put it into the atmosphere, it is very hard to take back, and forestry is not an effective solution. Instead, it seems that this money would be better spend campaigning for governments to invest in nuclear or wind energy to power our electric grid which would definitely reduce carbon in the atmosphere by more and more every year and have a lasting affect, rather than the questionable benefits of planting these trees. If you think that any of my thinking here is wrong, please reply to correct me, and take a look at this Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_planting#Role_in_climate_change
There are a bunch good reasons to plant more trees (and especially stop the wholesale cutting down of old forests) but carbon sequestering is not actually among them. In fact *any* carbon sequestering approach that does not bind the carbon into very stable minerals stored in geologically stable sealed caves (think nuclear waste storage) is a very temporary reprieve because it is going to get released back within the next 50-100 years latest when done in any other way. Reducing emissions is the effective way to (eventually) reduce CO2.
@@Thematic2177 I mean, yes. But actually no. The TeamTrees thing started from a TH-camr "Mr.Beast" as far as I know. He does a lot of crazy big stuff all the time, probably seen some of his videos in memes if your into those. He recently got 20 million subscribers and asked for some suggestions on what he should do. His community demanded that he plant 20 Million trees. He accepted and quickly realized this was a completely ridiculous goal. So he started by getting a few friends(6-7) to plant around 300 trees in a day. Then he rounded up about a thousand more to plant a bunch more. Still pretty much impossible to do without a lot more help. So he reached out to TH-camrs and now they are going to do this. It didn't start as a PR move, more of a celebration of reaching a nice goal. Now they are getting TH-camrs involved, and they aren't saying no because of the PR they will get. PR is honestly a bad choice of words, millennials correspond to 1/4th the current generational stack, you can't make public relations when you are also the public. W/e Has to do with exposure and trends. It is popular to be eco friendly even if your perceived eco-friendly-ness isn't really all that effectual. He is correct though Algae would be far better, however algae causes other problems. Bamboo would likely be one of the better methods as it spreads, but could easily become Invasive if left unchecked. The problem with campaigning the government for more nuclear and wind (why wind, it's one of the least effecient solar energy sources available is that campaigning is the biggest waste of money I can think of. Invest in nuclear energy and elect smarter politicians that care more about the economical problems and less about the social inequalities. Your not solving the problem, your solving a symptom.
Good thing I watched Veritasium's video first, because Steve Mould quickly asks and then promptly answers the question posed in Veritasium's video. Kind of spoils it if you already know the answer.
The lignin-bonded cellulose was deposited over a span of about 60 million years. *Some* was compacted and buried as it was covered with sediment. Over the next 300 million years it was chemically converted mostly into coal, but also into some crude oil, and methane gas.
@@imconsequetau5275 You say that as if it is an absolute fact...but you don't know that. It is just a guess. Nobody observed it and it cann't be repeated. So it is not science. It is just a guess.
@@williammoore6067 while I don't disagree that this is a hypothesis... ... I do disagree that his statement isn't science or scientific. A hypothesis is the way most discoveries in science begin. Whether that discovery aligns with the hypothesis or completely deviates from it, it's still the starting point from much of our scientific understanding.
Soooo.... I'm looking this up now, and according to every source I can find there is nothing that says all coal formed at the same period. In fact, according to the wiki "coal is known from most geological periods". Is this video just dead wrong?
It exaggerates. The vast majority of coal formed during the Carboniferous period, but it has formed during other periods, and is still forming in some areas. Conditions have to be such that large amounts of vegetation grows but something prevents it from breaking down quickly, for example being submerged in a low oxygen swamp or marsh.
I'm no geologist but my cursory research is finding examples of coal that formed in other periods. Peat seems to be a major source of what turned into coal for example. Apparently swamps make for good coal forming precursors. Perhaps the water inhibits the process of decay. I found one source that looks fairly informative: www.britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuel/Origin-of-coal The things he said sounded interesting and plausible but he seems to have flubbed the facts rather badly. Perhaps there were conditions in the period he referred to that made coal formation happen more than in other periods, but he stated things in absolute terms that do not seem correct.
Not entirely wrong. The creation of coal was ongoing right until basically the present. We have Triassic, Jurassic and Neogene coal seams. We have black coal, brown coal and peat which is being made right now.
55 Million years ago all the Coal and Oil in the North Sea formed. So Steve is dead wrong, and it's scary how easily influenced people are about the environment, when someone sane tries to reason with them, they blank and screams insults at one. Me personally I'm used to people not understanding scientific data, and drawing false conclusions. The Oil and Coal deposits in the North Sea formed due to the biggest theft of CO2 that has ever occurred on planet Earth, The Azolla Incident, where the Entire North Sea which was a lake by that time, was filled with a little fern the size of a mm^3 which not only drained the atmosphere of CO2 but also the Oceans of CO2, and this little plant which doubles it's biomass in 3 days when conditions are perfect, and as slow as 10 days in suboptimal conditions, formed a 30cm/10inch layer covering the entire North Sea, it lowered the CO2 levels from 3200 ppm to just slightly above 290 ppm this process took roughly 4 years. In 10 years it would have covered a surface so large that you could have covered each planet in the solar system with these plants. Well the plants that formed died over time and sank to the bottom of the sea, and mixed with sediments from rivers and slowly but surely all the CO2 which was drained from the atmosphere sank to the bottom of the North Sea and stayed there.
Thank you for not using little video clips to match a word in your script. A lot of my brain is used to evaluate or decipher the reason I am shown a pretty lady experiencing an epiphany.
ONE TREE, for the mother's pride ONE TREE, for the times we've cried ONE TREE, gotta stay alive I will survive ONE TREE, for the city streets ONE TREE, for the hip-hop beats ONE TREE, oh I do believe ONE TREE is all we need!!
At first I was afraid I was petrified I kept thinking I could never be coal without you by my side (pressure and all that) There's so many lyrics that match. Technically all the lyrics to I will survive fit here. You wouldn't even need to change them.
The second time I have seen this. NO the plants do not split CO2 at all, the bond is really strong, it splits water and the hydrogen bonds with the CO2 to create the sugars to grow, and the O2 comes from the oxygen in the water.
Yea, except it wasn't 60 Million years ago as ALL coal has C-14 in it many times greater than the error of testing nothing. Just as all limestone has C14 in it. Just as all oil has C14 in it... Either C14 radioacitve decay massively slowed down by MANy orders of magnitude, or their 60Million year age is complete BS. Or you play make believe that C14 magically swims around beneath the earth surface... The only thing we do know is that all the coal around the world is generally composed of nearly identical material.
Oh my god, I have known about photosynthesis for years, and have enjoyed fires all my life, but I have never fully released the whole process. I had intense waves of realization when you connected the dots between separating Carbon and O2, storing the solar energy as carbon, and then reintroducing the 02 and the carbon to release the solar energy as fire and recombing the molecules into CO2. I knew those things independently, but never connected the whole process together. Thank you for this video!
Probably just as most people. The problem becomes major when supposed "scientists" fail to connect so obvious dots and talk about idiotic technologies to sequester CO2 from the air...
@j mcmann lol so your answer is what magic? What else happens? Some sort of chemical reaction/change has to occur, what is the wood going to remain completely identical to before it got buried under tons of sediment.
I'm so glad I saw this, and that it explains one thing that I've been curious about for years. So what I'm getting from this is that no Dinosaurs (or their fossilized remains) were hurt in the making of modern-day coal or oil deposits.😜
Correct. Coal predates the earliest dinosaurs by about 100 million years. Hence no dinosaur fossils in coal deposits, but lost of plant and insect fossils. Mostly imprints.
When I was in elementary school in the 1970s a teacher told us that oil was the product of decayed dinosaurs. I then asked her why their fossils were close to the surface and oil was so deep. Crickets.
@@slick-px4pq Oil does not come from dinosaurs. It comes from _marine_ organisms, zoo- and phytoplankton that lived in shallow seas hundreds of millions of years before dinosaurs. Geologists know this and look for oil in areas that show signs of having been dried up ancient sea beds (for example, salt deposits).
Here is another: Yea, except it wasn't 60 Million years ago as ALL coal has C-14 in it many times greater than the error of testing nothing. Just as all limestone has C14 in it. Just as all oil has C14 in it... Either C14 radioacitve decay massively slowed down by MANy orders of magnitude, or their 60Million year age is complete BS. Or you play make believe that C14 magically swims around beneath the earth surface... The only thing we do know is that all the coal around the world is generally composed of nearly identical material.
@@boobgoogler Same reason coal with its high proportion of C14 disproves their ages. You cannot have something millions of years old and have C14 in it. Why? Its half life is only ~5700 years. If the object(Coal, limestone etc) was made up of 100% C14 when buried(nothing even comes close), then C14 should be undetectable BELOW the error threshold in the testing equipment in anything older than 150,000 years to 200,000 years. All Coal, limestone, oil, that has ever been tested .... they ALL have C14 in them many times greater than the error threshold of the testing equipment. Lets repeat that shall we? ALL coal/oil/limestone etc which has EVER been tested from EVERYWHERE around the world, has C14 in it many times greater than the error detection threshold of calibrated radiocarbon dating equipment. Therefore, due to simple thing called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, Their ages hypothesized for Coal/Oil/Limestone are complete BS as they all fail the C14 radiocarbon dating test.
@@w8stral - If what you say is true, that ends the discussion. But I would like to see references to prove that C-14 is common in fossil fuels and in limestone etc. Can you give citations to scientific papers supporting this? I will check out any that you provide. A quick google search of "coal and carbon 14" led me to several pages that said the exact opposite. The Wikipedia pages on C-14 said several interesting things, and give citations to research supporting them. According to articles on 'Carbon-14' and on the 'Suess effect', oil, gas, and coal contain so little C-14 that decreased C-14 in the air's CO2 is used as a measure of how much of that CO2 has come from burning fossil fuels because "the carbon from fossil fuels that is returned to the atmosphere through combustion is depleted in both C-13 and C-14 compared to atmospheric carbon dioxide." Researchers also rely on petroleum samples with especially low levels of C-14 when they need a standard for carbon compounds without any. It says that carbon-14 is quite rare actually. Carbon-12 makes up 99% of all carbon on Earth; carbon-13 makes up 1%; and carbon-14 (the radioactive one), occurs in trace amounts, making up less than 2 atoms for every 1 trillion (10 to the 12th power) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere. There is also information about the formation of C-14 from Nitrogen-14 by cosmic rays and lightning, from previous nuclear testing, and from nuclear power plants.
@@clearasmud376 Yes C14's presence does end the discussion and it is utterly disgustingly embarrassing of anyone who claims to be rational is still claiming coal/oil/NG/limestone are Millions of years old. There is no way possible that ALL solid non gaseous hydrocarbons around the world irregardless of depth have C14 above the error threshold of all forms of Radiocarbon dating. Either Half life of C14 is massively massively wrong as in an order of magnitude wrong, or the millions of years is wrong. Well, C14's half life, no one is questioning and we have historical dating of objects which aligns perfectly with C14's half life. Likewise not one single person has come up with a way to transport or change Carbon 12 in situ to C14 in limestone, oil, NG, coal, peat, etc. Everyone has known about this gargantuan discrepancy for well over 50 years now. Yet text books and so called "scientists" still trot out this gargantuan lie for religious reasons can be the only explanation.
I remember looking at a big tree and trying to work out why it doesn't sink into a sink hole where the mass was derived from the earth, and the same thing finally hitting me after a few days: it's mostly made of air. But my correction I eventually realized is that, by mass, it's probably mostly made of "ground" after all - that by-definition wet stuff that flows *through* the ground, thus not leaving a void when sucked up.
You were mostly correct initially: the tree is formed mostly of carbon, and that carbon is formed from carbon dioxyde in the air. That said, some water is also used in the process and become part of the mass of the tree, but it's a much smaller part.
The lignin theory is disputed. A 2016 study largely refuted this idea, finding extensive evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and that shifts in lignin abundance had no impact on coal formation. They suggested that climatic and tectonic factors were a more plausible explanation.[
Me too. I always remember this quote which says that inorder to understand something full teach it someone and if you get stuck somewhere, it means that you haven't understood it enough so reteach it to yourself. And you will finally get it. I think the quote is from Richard Feynman.
@@Corbald Actually the CO2 must have been in the atmosphere all at once for the trees to extract it and convert it into wood. Unless there were other large natural sources of CO2 which kept the atmosphere "topped up".
Apparently, trees almost wiped themselves out by sucking all of the CO2 from the atmosphere. Before the evolution of lignin-eating fungi, there wasn't a carbon cycle, so trees could have made the earth uninhabitable by CO2-breathing plants. I've heard a similar claim made about calcium carbonate today: life forms can't easily break it down, so it just accumulates, potentially exhausting the supply of CO2 in the air. We're at something of a low point of CO2 concentration if you look at the last few hundred million years.
@@omri9325 I was thinking about the seed when commenting, but I see your point. I suppose the chunk loading is simply your view of the horizon. The world, including all the coal, are already there :3
Actually science shows the earth is constantly making coal, natural gas and crude oil as it is all an ongoing process. Some ideas sound nice or cool, but reality is truth. After humans discovered how the earth makes crude oil from plants and kelp, they started growing things to make oil they call bio-fuels. The earth still has tectonic plate shifts, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Wood (trees) get buried and the process to make coal can start with some of those trees. We can take a 55 gallon drum, throw in some wood and burn it and wile it is burning, we cover the drum with a tiny hole in the top and keep a fire under the drum. Tomorrow we uncover the drum and we have a 55 gallon drum full of coal. The video speaker only speaks about trees that fall over on the ground. He does not address the millions of trees that were buried from volcanic eruptions. For just one, see in the Cascade Range, Mount St. Helens eruption. The speaker also is not to smart when it comes to Co2 and Climate Change. He severely ignores scientific facts. Science Facts; Earth Atmosphere Make Up Nitrogen 78% (780,00 PPM) Oxygen 21% (210,000 PPM) Co2 0,04% (400 PPM) Oxygen and nitrogen 99% (990,000 PPM) Argon less than 1% The speaker things 0.04% of the Atmosphere is a threat. Co2 is 1/3 Carbon and 2/3 Oxygen 1/3 of 0.04 = 0.013 Carbon is 0.013% of the Atmosphere. Humans produce 70% of that Carbon 70% of 0.013 = 0.009 Human Carbon Footprint is 0.009% of the Atmosphere. 0.009% is driving Climate to an Out of Control Warming? Now some will try to say, But Co2 is a Greenhouse Gas. It is a ring of 3 atoms. Really? 3 atoms make a ring? You sure 3 atoms do not make a Triangle? You sure three atoms don't make a line? * * * * * * I don't see a ring there but I do see a triangle and I see a line. Co2 (400 PPM) N2 O2 (990,000 PPM) So your telling me that * * * in a 0.04% measure is greater radiance than * * and * * of 99% quantity? Now according to the EPA, NASA and the IPCC N2o (Nitrous Oxide) has a GWP 281 times that than Co2 Co2 Global Warming Potential is 1 N2o Global Warming Potential is 281 (256-298 and the mean is 281) N2o is 2 Nitrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Nitrogen and Oxygen is 99% of the Atmosphere. What is the GWP of all that Nitrogen and Oxygen? Do they thin it is Zero? They have no radiance? What is the GWP of Nitrogen? What is the GWP of Oxygen? This is how Science works people. O
@@arnehofoss9109 No. Trees contain no part of the sun whatever. They use energy from the sun to break up carbon dioxide. They incorporate the carbon into their structure (how they are made of air) and kick out the useless (to them) oxygen so we can use it to make high quality chopping devices to chop down trees.
Demand for 100% recycled paper contributes to CO2 emissions in two ways. The processes used to break down PCW into usable pulp several greenhouse gassed. And when there is less demand for sustainably sourced pulp wood fewer trees are planted. We should use FSC (Forest Sustainablity Conference) paper as much as possible.
I used to have some good sized pieces of real coal and I used to tell my kids when they were little that their daddy got them from Santa Claus when I was so bad of a kid
Fossils form where there is a lack of decomposition, usually when the material has been rapidly buried in a watery environment. An alternative reason for the lack of decomposition of lignin by fungi and bacteria would be an overwhelming volume of lignin being rapidly buried in watery environment during a very short period of time. A catastrophic global disaster such as The Great Flood could have easily formed all of the coal at the same time.
Not sure if bait, but here goes: There never was a worldwide great flood after land was conquered by plants, this would clearly show up in the sediment record. The same sediment record that shows us that all of the coal wasn't formed at the same time (as do other, independent methods like radiometric dating of associated minerals) but over millions of years, which also leads to different qualities or "stages"of coal, a process that is understood quite well. Then the sediment record is not homogeneous all over the world, although it has some world wide markers that help align it in time. A global flood, btw. would be another such marker, but is nowhere to be found. The sediment record being location specific shows us that many (but not all) coal deposits stem from a time before Gondwana broke apart. As we can directly measure the movement of plates today, this gives us another clue to the time having passed since then. Lastly, while legends of great floods are to be expected from a species often settling near water, the origins of the specific legend of "The Great Flood" you probably refer to can be convincingly traced to a local flood somewhere in Mesopotamian flood plain.
@@LeGrandMort MOST of the world's civilisations have RECORDS of there having been a great flood, and it would be EXTREMELY unlikely for them all to have gathered together over MANY thousands of years, and "conspired" to create a lie. Believe the "long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" nonsense of you want, but watch some Kent Hovind videos (if you TRULY believe in truth being propagated) and see what you say then.
When I worked as a gas delivery driver I was amazed to find out the company I worked for made a number of gases, literally, by extracting them from the atmosphere. Then later saddened to find out the most popular gases used required much, much less greener approaches to production.
There is nowhere but the atmosphere to obtain the noble elements (helium, neon, argon, radon, etc.), since they do not react with other elements to produce compounds, and all exist in the gaseous state.
@@lvcsa1165 I think some do get generated from radioactive decay in certain heavy elements that are in the ground - when you buy a house there may well be a radon risk survey as it can build up underground and if it leaks out, it can be deadly.
Yes, you're right, there are several isotopes of radon. The important one is Rn-222, which is a member of the U-238 series. Rn-222 has a half-life of 3.8 days, so it has to be continuously generated to stay around.
It seems to me that what he's holding is not the mined coal, but a piece of compressed charcoal, which is probably a few years old at most... not 300000000 yo.
One of the episodes of Cosmos (newer one with NDT) went into pretty good detail about the carboniferous period, and the massive fire it led to in the ?Permian? extinction. That this also supplied the coal we use now was more of a side note, but great details. This was also the major flipflop between carbon dioxide and oxygen dominating the atmosphere (behind nitrogen, obviously) and the period where we got arthropods nearing B-movie dimensions. (may not be attack of the 50 foot grasshopper, but millipedes larger than the family dog are memorable)
I have worked several seams of coal at different levels of the mountain. One seam was the purest coal I've seen. Highly prized for metalurgic coal. At the top of the mountain was a different type of coal. So it's hard fore to believe your premise. If the bogs of Europe sank and layers of sand and shells built up on it, it would become coal.
I'm a coal miner. I see several layers of coal being mined. It is not all the same age. The statement you make is misleading. If the coal is in the same layer its reasonable to assume all the coal in that layer is the same age. When the seam of coal is separated by rock it woukd be absurd to assume that coal is the same age. The visual illusions of charcoal is also misleading. Charcoal that you show in the charcoal is a man made product of mostly wood charcoal and clays.
How long time separates those layers? Are there different types of coal in those layers? What freaky shit could have happened on the ground to separate layers?
@@petercarlson811 The "Mary Lee" seam will outcrop on the surface just south of central Alabama at the periphery of the Black Warrior Basin. The money seam of Blue Creek coal that my company mines is an avereage of 1700 feet deep at the mine location. The two seams are separated by a "middleman", a layer of incredibly hard rock that will range from 3 to 6 feet thick. I do not know the time the earths geology took to create the middleman strata, however, it is apparent that the 2 seams were separate chronological events.
There is a theory that is reasonable. There was a huge catastrophic flood that swept biological material into areas and rapidly covered them with sediment. People dont like this theory as it aligns too closely with the Biblical account.
john ruby It’s incredible how desperately these terrible theories are fabricated, despite how obvious and logical a global flood really is. If God wasn’t attached to it, nobody would hesitate to entertain and adopt the theory. Every geological phenomenon plainly abides by the theory of hydrologic sorting. Every. Single. Time.
@@evanchi9460 I didn't see evidence of flooding and I don't support that hypothesis. If every seam of coal was due to a catastrophic flood then the floods happened several times. Besides where did all the water go? We're on a closed loop.
Thank you for caring. The older we get the more we learn and have amazing storys/concepts to tell. Every thing can be interesting if you look at it from the right angle❤️
I agree Tobias, Everything is interesting if you look at it from the RIGHT angle. Not from an environmentalist nutwing lunacy angle, As if planting more trees will help anything, first of all these organizations don't plant trees where they are needed, they don't refertilize the soil around these saplings they plant, they are literally the worst idiots alive, Oh yeah let's plant new trees, where should we plant them, Oh in a forest where the soil is already rich and we will do as small of an impact on the environment as possible. Did you know that Sahara desert was once forested, did you know that once the Whole of Iraq which is extremely barren now, was the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION and a fucking paradise on Earth, filled with trees and plants... It's a sad fact when me a 27 year old guy who loves history knows more than everyone else alive at this moment apparently about the fucking climate. You need soil, you need water, you need plantlife and you need to shelter these things from the environment aka Shelter it from WIND and most importantly prevent deforestation, because if there is things that most people don't understand is that Trees exist to protect the soil underneath them from the environment. Oh and CO2 is actually a net contributor to plant life growth and stability, and every nutcase lunatic out there screams less CO2 it's so dangerous we don't need it at all. With less CO2 we're gonna have it a lot worse than we have it now, Winters will be longer, crop harvest will fail more often, trees will drain the Water from the ground, the soil will dry up, the wind will erode it away, and last but not least you'll end up with a barren desert. It's the same as if you actually deforested a place, because then the wind will also barren the place, just ask Iceland how many years it has taken to reforest the place. They lost over 80% of their soil to erosion caused by deforestation.
@@livedandletdie Is this necessaire? I just wanted to encourage a stanger so kids don't have to memorize stupid list, but have a real connection and insight to matters that will let them have a nice future. To your story, i don't care what you think you know! If you think all others are stupid and only know the matter by side reference, chances are that you don't understand our thinking and likely have diffrent intents. We will never see each others side if we have diffrent goals. Reforestation of a dessert is a thing and has been done(Napoléon/west france). If it is the right solution? I don't know. Co2 is a problem because we are responsible for it. We know somewhat what happend in the past, so it's easier to predict the world if it is more like it was and not how it can be. We want to solve a problem we know, not have 1000 of problems the likely never existed. I hope for the next generation that they will solve some problems and not just say it was always like this why should we pay for the last generations greed.
Buy more lumber! it sequesters the carbon in the new house you build, but also if it's US or Canadian lumber then the timber company plants twice as many trees as it cuts down. Not only is it mandated by regulations, it's in their interests too, as then they have more timber to harvest when the trees mature.
One issue - the amount of forest cover in the planet has INCREASED in the last 50 years, particularly in Europe, North America and Africa. The greening of the Sahel is a major change. So while there are places like Brazil and Southeast Asia where tree cutting exceeds planting, it may not actually be as bad as some believe.
This is probably because of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that plants use as food. The most prolific period for life in earth's history had 10x our current amount of CO2.
@@jerensteffen clearly. And I guess that is the point. Incresing CO2 is leading to a greening of the planet. We used to call that a negative feedback, before all negative feedbacks were banned and we were only allowed to talk about positve feedbacks.
When reading the wiki article on deforestation you get mixed numbers on global tree cover, from a decrease of 4% to an increase of 7% on different timescales. I don't kow which numbers are most reliable...
Steve, Excellent ! So you've also proven the saying, "If you want to learn about a subject, phrase it online as a statement". People will trip over one another to correct you" LOL
Excellent insight! However, it seems immoral to state things as facts if you are actually just trying to drum up enough controversy to learn more about the subject. Spreading disinformation is harmful.
CORRECTIONS
So this video was quite rushed because I wanted to get it out in time for the #teamtrees launch. Here are a couple of things I got wrong:
Not ALL coal was made during the carboniferous period. There exists some younger coal here and there that formed under rare conditions that enabled it in spite of the presence of capable fungi. I did film myself saying that but it was lost it my rushed edit.
Photosynthesis is more complicated than I described. It involves water for a start. And it seems that the oxygen released during photosynthesis comes from the H₂O not the CO₂. Though I haven't be able to verify that.
And here's a non-correction! The thing I was holding up at the start was *not* charcoal. It was a coal dust briquette. You could argue that the briquette was made recently but the coal it's made of is old!
So yeah, the thrust of the video still stands but it's been a learning opportunity for me!
A final thought on planting trees for carbon capture. A lot of comments saying "what's the point? When the trees die the decomposers will release the CO₂ back into the atmosphere. But really this is more about planting *forests*. In a forest, when a tree dies, another tree grows in its place recapturing the carbon. But also, it's my understanding that it takes a very long time to release the CO₂. Like hundreds of years. So in terms of tackling climate change which is a problem of human time scales, it's a useful endeavour.
Yep, I came to the comments to tell you that briquettes are not coal. I suggest you change the thumbnail.
@@MelindaGreen theyre made of coal no oopsie here
Even with the mistakes you still managed to get me to part with £10 (13 trees for those of you who live in one of the colonies). Another great video.
@@Paul-c01 thank you!
They have found a hat that turned to coal after 80 years. This was DUG OUT of a previous mine collapse. And they have created coal in a few years in a lab.
So basically we are stuck with plastics for the next 60 million years until some bacteria figure out how to decompose them?
There actually already exist a bacteria that can do that. It is called Ideonella sakaiensis. It was discovered in Japan in 2016. I don't know much more about it. But i'm guessing it's pretty rare and in small amounts. Hopefully we can learn to multiply it.
humans happen to do this cool thing called "innovante"
i believe there that been a few that have been engineered and/or discovered or something. But we don't necessarily want them to be wide spread because we don't want plastics to be decompose. Yes it would be great to deal with the land fills and the thrash in the ocean but It would suck to have to buy a new pen every ten days because it's rotting away and it stinks (and every two days in the summer because its hot)
A better solution is to have something like a plastic eating worm that is an intermediate step and a bacteria that likes the worms waste.
The entire reason we use plastics is *because* they don’t decompose. The second something that does becomes widespread, we will switch to something else.
A common misconception that you included is that plants split CO2 into carbon and oxygen, while they actually split water and bind the hydrogen to the CO2 to create sugar and release the left-over oxygen from the water into the air.
@@st0rm-xx The amount of atoms in a molecule is defined after its type. H2O means there are two hydrogen atoms and only one oxygen atom present. Carbon Dioxide has two oxygen atoms per carbon atom and is thus written as CO2.
So it splits carbon and releases the oxygen?
Thus the effective result is the same, water and CO2 in, oxygen out.
@@luminescentlion oxygen and sugar
@@Bangmomsmakebombs splitter
Hello, and good day!
The theory presented here has been mostly abandoned by experts a few years before you published this video.
I greatly appreciate your videos, and recently I watched your 2019 video on the Carboniferous coal production peak. It presents a very compelling and persuasive story, dating as best I can tell all the way back to a 1990 paper, that explains the coal production peak by a lag between the evolution of lignin production in plants and the evolution of lignin degradation in fungi. That hypothesis was bolstered in 2010 by a Science paper which used the molecular clock to estimate the evolution of white-rot Agaricomycetes, the main known lineage with lignin degradation ability, to the early Permian, right at the end of the Carboniferous.
However, that hypothesis has been mostly abandoned after a 2016 PNAS paper questioned it on several grounds:
- the low lignin content of some of the most important Carboniferous peat-forming plants: lycopsid bark is very abundant in Carboniferous coal, yet it contains no lignin,
- periods when lignin was abundantly produced do not correspond to observed peaks in coal production,
- coal accumulation peaks seem to reflect local environmental conditions, not the lignin content of the plant material,
- Carboniferous fossil wood often does exhibit signs of fungal decay,
- while lignin-degrading peroxidases do seem to have appeared in the Early Permian, other less effective lignin-degrading enzymes do exist which seem to have evolved as far back as the Devonian (420-359 Ma), effectively closing the gap between lignin production(∼420 Ma) and lignin degradation evolution,
- massive coal deposits have been formed during the Permian, after the evolution of lignin degradation by white-rot Agaricomycetes,
- furthermore, if the gap hypothesis was correct, the lack of lignin degradation and subsequent carbon burial should have led to the depletion of atmospheric carbon in a much shorter time than the proposed 120 Ma Carboniferous gap.
Rather, the Carboniferous peak is explained by the abundance of equatorial wetlands, which maximize productivity while minimizing decay thanks to waterlogged anoxic ground. Crucially, this accumulation is sustained thanks to the continued subsidence of the ground (ie, the ground sinks) caused by the formation of the Pangea: the collision of continental tectonic plates led to buckling of the crust, creating basins where the ground slowly sink, being filled all the while by sediments charged with organic plant matter, which eventually formed coal.
This comment seemes to be very underrated!
Excellent comment. Let us not overlook that atmospheric chemistry has evolved with time and associated oxygen levels too. Many environmental conditions become anoxic which favors preservation of organics, both today and in deep time. I was a geology intern at Rochester and Pittsburgh Coal Co. back in the days when the coal was still forming ...
Was thinking the same thing
_"a Science paper"_ - I'm guessing you are referring to a paper in the journal Science? Could you please provide authors and date so we can see the study ourselves?
@@LabGecko Sure! The DOI of the Science paper is 10.1126/science.1221748, and that of the PNAS article is 10.1073/pnas.1517943113.
1:50 Lignin: Essence of Wood, A Mould Fragrance
Pour homme and pour fern
Lyrics to the song: “Pour some Lignin on meee...”
... If hippies were in charge of 80’s lyrics.
That's actually one of the most interesting thing i've learned this month.
repeated?
Each one of his videos are the most interesting things I've learnt every month
And a lie, so be careful what you believe.
@@unlokia Sad that people still buy into these bs stories as they've so called been proven by "science". Just look into the Australian professor Peter Ridd his case and the way his university was trying to do their utter best to censor him, but luckily their plan backfired and the court's ruling might be a big game changer IF enough people get to know it that is. And it's up to us to spread it, because mainstream media won't, so please look into it and spread the word!
@@unlokia What is a lie, exactly?
I love geological time "It all happened at the same time" = it happened over a time period more than 60 times the period humans have existed
Yet in a set time frame hence the same time
@@robertquartly5866 I love geological time "It all happened at the same time" = it happened over a time period more than 60 times the period humans have existed
@@CorazonDeCristoCano Yet in a set time hence the same time
Fake news.
@@archangel_metatron I see you didn't read the pinned comment
Coal found in Australia is from the Permian period i.e. after the Carboniferous period, therefore not all coal formed at the same time.
not only Australia, also India, Antartica, Zealandia and a few others - Gondwana
I guess it took time for the news to get across the oceans and deserts.
Maybe it's something to do with the Subduction process. This occurs in the Earth's crust where one tectonic plate is pushed under an adjacent plate, forming a geological feature known as an Arc-trench complex. Lithosphere is continuously recycled into the Earth's mantle, which may explain a shift in the sedimentary layer that coal and anthracite are discovered. Only a guess...!
You can find out why all the different theory’s by subscribing to Creation research Channel, watch coal form in a week or so, watch strata form in minutes on video called The rocks cry out , layers and liars, watch their videos on coal, and you will see how absurd all the different theory’s are, trees with no roots or branches are found all over the world, trees that couldn’t have survived in swamps,
And check out where there museum is in Queensland, massive area 7 times the size of England covered by fossilised trees, generally going one direction, far greater than a “ local Flood, “. Also worth watching video called boomerangs to Babel, interesting that “ throwing sticks” were in Egypt and India before Australian boomerangs, explains why University studies show that Australian Aborigines languages are only 4000 years old.
Yeah, all along the east coast of the US there’s coal formed in Triassic basins from 200MYA, distinctly *after* the Carboniferous.
I play Minecraft, and I can confirm this is true
Minecraft is trash... That's just my opinion
Eben WY I had that same thought lmao
@@probablynotabigtoe9407 lol chill dude. 'Twas but a joke
@@ewy4010 still not as funny as your face
@@probablynotabigtoe9407 aww.. thanks for the complement :3
always wondered why there are no "new" coal deposits.
Peat is the closest we have.
really puts into perspective why we will run out of coal if we keep using it
@@pewpewdragon4483 If we run out of coal it would also mean that we released 60 million years of plant life worth of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yikes!
@@SteelSkin667 sad way to put it. :-\
unless you count the recently discovered 'clean' ones?
So for millions of years the ground just had stacks of dead trees that couldn't break down? Just miles of soggy wood that goes down a long way?
Read up on The Great Dying (or watch videos) -- the worst mass extinction in Earth's history. It's believed that much of it was caused by volcanic activities igniting massive coal seams resulting in sulfuric acid condensing as morning fog over much of the planet!!
@@firstnamelastname9918
Let's rule out Noah's flood shall we. Even though there is plenty of evidence of sea life everywhere.
@@ohasis8331
Does this mean a coal seam 10' deep came from a forest floor 640' deep with trees growing out the top?
@@gonebamboo4116 Wait, wha.. what!? The f*** does Noah have to do with this?
@@ohasis8331 Well I haven't researched this yet, but that doesn't sound right at all to me. iirc, coal is some 60-80% carbon and the rest mostly hydrogen. I believe that wood is largely oxygen (by mass). Most of the moisture will be lost, the remaining material compressed, not sure about the other chemical processes, but 64:1 sounds really low.
EDIT: Did a little research and wow! That's a lot of complex processes! (Well, several complex processes.) Haven't found info on wood to coal mass yet though. Would love if you could post a link on the 64:1 number.
Millions years later: "Why almost all fossil plasic was made at the same time"
"All coal was formed at the same time." Holds up a charcoal briquette.
It is actually a coal dust brick.
A coal briquette that was manufactued last month. :)
@Major Problems Charcoal briquettes are made from wood byproducts, not Coal. Much lower burn temp.
@@miked5106 yeah but the carbon molecules were created during the big bang
@@HootOwl513 and what he's holding isn't a charcoal briquette
The world must have looked so alien covered with dead yet not decomposing trees.
What, no forest fires ?? Hard to believe. Planetformers inserting an experimental species sounds more like it.
@@lenovo762
Has to be right?
Couldn't possibly be Noah's flood.
@@gonebamboo4116
How has Noas arch anything to do with undecomposable trees?!
the world was a lot wetter back then. It rained all the time, so no fires.
@@i.i.iiii.i.i robably the fact rotting flesh and plants don't tend to stick around long out in the open and occurs much less often in the wild, noah's flood perfectly explains how we got all the coal and oil we have by rapid burial, any other explanation is wishful thinking and desperation.
Coal is solar energy stored as a solid fuel.
Yes, so when some climate change fanatic says we need to use more solar energy, tell them "we already are when we burn coal".
@@thomasfleig1184 You understand absolutely nothing about climate change, do you? Or are you just trying to be funny? Probably both!
@@dojinho... I know that these fucking so called "experts" are nothing of the sort. You can go back to the early 1900's, and look at all the times these idiots have alternated between warning us of global cooling and global warming. Before the 1930's, they were concerned about global cooling. In the 1930's, which was the warmest decade in recorded history, they told us we had 10 years to stop the "irreversible effects of global warming"... Lol. Sound familiar? I remember in the 1970's listening to all this talk about global cooling, and a possible "mini ice age". Then they went back to global warming again in the 80's. Every ten years we get some idiot telling us we "only have 10 years". The UN warned us in 1989, yet again, we only had a decade to stop global warming. Well 30 years have gone by since that warning, and we are still here. In 2007 Al Gore said the sea ice was going to be gone by 2020, and possibly as early as 2014, and that the polar bears were going extinct. Also that the sea level was going rise and flood places like NY city. Now here it is 2019, and we have more sea ice than we did in 2007, and the polar bear populations have increased. Also, the sea level hasn't risen and NY is still here. Yet here we go again, with idiots like AOC telling people we only have a decade and that this is "our WW2". Proving that bartenders shouldn't be elected to congress. Idiots keep telling us we have 10 years, which we've heard over and over again since the beginning of the LAST century, and morons listening to them. Let me ask you this; if these idiots knew what they were talking about, why are they wrong about their predictions far more than they are right? Why didn't anyone predict the 18 years, where there was NO rise in temperature, which they now call "the pause"? Why did several climatologists get caught changing data, because what was actually happened didn't agree with their predictions? You see, real scientists would NEVER change data to make their hypothesis correct. That's not science. That is politics. So yes, I understand climate change VERY WELL.
@@thomasfleig1184 Yeah, you're argument is pure bullshit. Not that you care to get educated. Science is science. I don't give a rats arse what media says about science -- that's often wrong. There was no "global cooling scare" -- that's bullshit. You're attempting to compare early scientific speculation with decades of mature, peer-reviewed, solid FACTS! There's nothing wrong with early speculation -- we have to *find* something interesting to study before we start a study. But don't fking call that science -- that's bullshit.
@@thomasfleig1184 @Thomas Fleig Too bad you don't use all that mental energy to take a sober look at the facts instead of trying to baffle us with bullshit.
As a kid I always wondered why fossil fuels are limited and never got a sufficient answer.. it seems over time I just accepted it and forgot I was wondering about it. Thanks for reminding me that I was once curious.
glad u corrected yourself about photosynthesis :)
Try explaining the oceans of methane on titan with that theory
Oil is a living organism and is being replenished
It's very rare that I learn something radically new on TH-cam, but this clip did it. When I went to school (admittedly way back), we still learnt that coal was made when the conditions were just right, meaning that large swaths of plant matter became trapped underground (in swamps and whatnot). That was, at the time, the only circumstance where it could be explained that decomposition couldn't happen. But once you think about it, the other condition where decomposition can't happen is just what this video explains. This made my day, because another element of the world has now become much better explained. I always had a nagging feeling that there seems to be far too much fossil fuel in the ground for the original explanation to make (complete) sense. Now it finally does -- thank you :D !!!
@@solalflechelles1216 Thank you for sharing the article. It's really fascinating and fairly accessible as well. While I am sorry that the video is wrong, it also serves as a good example of the nature of advancing scientific understanding, and how paradigms shift.
The other thing that's at the core of the video, though, is about how the carbon in fossil fuels was a limited resource formed over geologic periods of time, and our consumption of it is thus also bounded. That conclusion is supported by the article you linked as well.
Just remember the video is titled "almost all coal..." not "all coal..."
Except for the fact that coal was found at a 2000 year old village that had collapsed. This coal was formed from wood of one of the buildings that fell into a sinkhole. The pressure from the weight of ground collapsing on it plus moisture and heat from the surrounding hot springs caused the coal to form. It was only 2k years old. That finding is what originally led us to making it in an oven now.
"Mould" - seems an appropriate name for someone studying decomposing........
Maverick I bet he’s a fun gi.
its almost like hes a character from a comic book
@@Cooliemasteroz - That's very good!!!
That would be "mold" not "mould"
@@croakingfrog3173 - Yes I know, but phonetically, it is "correct"......
Coal: Took 60 million years to produce; took 500 years to use up.
Not true, there are huge coal deposits all over the world that have never been tapped or only slightly. Example is the coal in N and S Dakota, there's one pstch 100 foot thick that is over 200 miles across that I worked at, after 90 years of mining (open pit) they've just removed a square mile or so.
Look up "interactive visualization of coal data" for example to see how much there is in the US alone.
coal was consumed by the Romans 2000 years ago and by the Chinese 5500 years ago.
Today we aren't remotely close to exhausting world coal supplies.
You're repeating the 'we're running out of resources' myths you were brainwashed with at school.
In fact, coal has been formed over a great range of time. The oldest coal dates from the Precambrian and was formed from deposits of organic material 3 billion years ago. It was formed from an offshore layer of algae at the mouth of an ancient river delta. Over time, dead algae built up on the sea bottom and was then buried under flood deposits of silt. The youngest coal dates from the Eocene, fifty million years ago and is characterized as soft coal deposited in the subtropical forests of ancient Germany.
3 billion years Steven? 50 million years Steven? You're living in cloud cuckoo land. Who told ( taught ) you those numbers? Can we have some scientific validation of these rediculous time spans please.
@@colvinator1611 who told(taught) you those numbers are wrong?
@@colvinator1611 lol how are those timespans ridiculous at all? You're off your rocker colin, carbon dating makes telling how old coal is as simple as testing it and studying the land from where it came from tells you why it's found there. Oh I forgot the earth and everything on it was created 6000 years ago by sky daddy.
@@colvinator1611 Not to be mean, and because I do understand the skepticism, I searched for some basic resources online briefly. Lignite is relatively new coal in most cases, forming without the same levels of deep pressure and high temperature, and its youth is attributable to the correct conditions to prevent decay, in waterlogged basins with acid formations in the peat like substrate allowing for the buildup of carbon from previously living things. This video explains part of why coal is so prevalent in this short time period, but of course geologists can spend their entire undergrad years focusing on the subject, instead of watching a 6 minute TH-cam video.
Tell me more about the algae coal
I've planted over a hundred trees on my 3 acre property, over the years. Doing my part...
Thank you.
Until they die and decompose and return every gram of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
@@medexamtoolscom Actually, I turn that lumber into furniture and charcoal for my garden...
nobody asked but thanks anyway
Thank you for spending time in doing that :) You are a good person.
Another fun fact that I'm paraphrasing from one of my other favorite youtube channels, PBS Eons:
The Environmental pressure that originally caused the ancestors of trees to grow so tall was all that undecomposed matter lying around. It got so deep over time it blocked out access to the sun for plants trying grow on the ground! So over time, trees got taller and taller in an effort to retain access to sunlight!
Jesse H. What about higher carbon dioxide (what plants breath) being higher back then? That makes plants go crazy, look up some videos on it there are some super cool experiments with plants growing super big
PBS is not educational... It's mostly nonscientific garbage. CO2 levels being high causes Plants to grow faster, taller and produce more fruits. It's a well established fact, and it also causes the Water level in the ground to not deplete as fast because it lowers the amount of water that trees waste when there is higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
@@livedandletdie but also not all plants grow the same and not all fruit bearing plants grow the same. although they all tend to stick to a rule it can be completely different for some.
c02 can only do so much and pouring in higher and higher levels doesn't just equate directly to more and more, as that would be classed as a miracle.
preperation techniques and methods of whatever to maintain water run off or water logging and the addition and prevention of minerals and nutrition leaving the soil before the fruit has bared etc, different environments cause different things like water evaporation even how much water is available and temperature drops, some plants dont like to bare in certain temperatures or conditions, much like cherries they tend to halt growing in the span they do if it rains heavily on the tree and the weight puts pressure and stress into the stems and branches and apparently halts the growth, look it up they use helicopters to blow the water off the tree using its propeller thrust from above.
all im trying to get at is while c02 is vital its not the only thing that decides the fate of the said plant or fruit.
just like water for us, if we drink too much it can infact actually kill us.
The Major do I understand you correctly that your hypothesis is “higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 correlate with taller trees, and the mechanism is CO2 promoting taller growth, and that is sufficient to explain ever taller forests during the Carboniferous period”?
I want to make sure I correctly understand what you are saying, so if I’ve mischaracterized anything please correct me.
Total missunderstood fact, that's what's happening in every forest, every tree wants to grow taller so it has more acces to the sun light. It's an endless cycle where CO2 grown because of fires and other factors, the globe becomes wormer so there are more BIG trees, then they produce too much oxygen that creates bigger animals just like in the carboniferous period, huge toads, then snowglobe and not that many plants, oxygen lowers and the cycle starts again. Amen.
Seen your correction about planting trees, yes trees or forests are a storage not really converters, it means that as soons as the forest has a stable size it's not taking anything anymore (in fact it still is but it will take a very small part that will end up forerver trapped in the soil). Yes we can think that it takes a lot of time to have a new forest of stable size but it still is a storage and not a converter, it's adressing a flux issue with a stock solution if you see what I mean. That beeing said it could be possible to find better solution than forests using plants that would more work like converters than storage, or even possible to engineer some.
I think that coal was made about two months ago at the Kingsford plant!
You're thinking of charcoal. Not the same thing.
@@Dubanx The guy in the video was holding up charcoal, despite claiming to be talking about coal.
ITs not coal, it is char
@@w8stral did you know based off its look that contains around 5-20% clay
Its a brick of coke not coal he's holding its compressed coal dust true coal is shiny and layered
It looks like he's holding a charcoal briquette that was made sometime this year.
Charcoal briquettes contain coal as well as other fossil based ingredients.
Invevented in 1919 by Henry Ford and manufactured under the name Kingsford.
Which should warn you of the likely incorrect material in this presentation. Read a mining engineer text or geologist text and this one layer worldwide falls apart.
His presentation is to get you to contribute to his activist PAC. He could just have easily scammed you by saying it all happened in a worldwide flood that Noah survived, or when an asteroid hit burning the Earth.
@@lolaice8959 But I've handled coal. It's hard and shiny and doesn't leave as much black on your hands as charcoal does. In the video that looks like charcoal. Not that it makes much difference, the guy is pushing his agenda and soliciting money.
Coal looks more like black crushed rocks. That's a briquette.
Glad someone else noticed.
got 20 notifications about trees.
That's a great collaboration.
MR BEAST WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
Anyways im proud of this community
Another thing that came to mind to me years ago was that wood is sugar. It's just that very few things can break the bond of the sugars. The b=name gives away that it's sugar; cellulose. If it ends in "ose", it's very likely sugar.
I wonder how forests look like with all this dead trees stack on each other, how tall this stacks was, and how new trees can grow when everything was obstructed by dead trunks.
"Life will find a way."
I had the same question
This is one of many of the little problems the evolutionists have with their presentations of how everything happened in this world
Shhhhhh you will upset the educated with common sense.
I'm pretty sure there would be almost no dead trunk. The only thing bacteria won't digest is the lignin, but all the other structures would be, everything would be turned into a powder and mixed into the ground and end up compressed when more and more things pile on top of it, the ground would be getting even higher, things would just grow at the top.
It's just dirty as usual, with a thin veil of humus.
There are also other things happening, like fires
Fire would turn the lignin protein into a soap, ever tried to cook wood? just try, you'll have your answer.
common sense is useless for science.
There is a rock formation in my province in an area called drumheller, the rock is about 66-67 million years old and has a quite a bit of coal in it, enough that it used to be mined. It’s very cool that most of the worlds coal was formed at the same time, but definitely not all of it.
Great video and I’m glad your on this project!
What's in your hand is a piece of barbecue coal and it was made in march 2019 ;-)
Indeed. Sure looks like charcoal, which of course, isn't coal. But good show nonetheless.
It could also be a coal briquette formed by compressing coal powder. Quite hard to get the real thing nower days in UK.
Our "Gretas" here don't care about such small differences.
"Climate chance is an actual problem" our smart leader says in the video .... and boys, THAT'S the message of this video.
@@dextertreehorn haha yes
Ok my bad 😨
This is a language thing now. In the German language all the black stuff is coal regardless of the age.
as a todler my grandfather threw me in the coalshed on the balcony when lying there i saw a diamond in one of the coals so beautifull colors, long time i thought i imagined it untill i learned in school that they are made of the same substance so it made sence. ;)
Actually plants break water into hydrogen and oxygen and then combine the hydrogen to CO2 to make carbohydrates.
ATP and NADPH FTW!
Basically if they stop cutting forests, CO2 problem will be solved.
@@tamjansan1154 No, it will take a long, long, long time for plant life on this planet to re-fix carbon into living tissue by taking up CO2 in the air. Millions of years. All that burned coal was buried, fossilized wood...there isn't enough surface area on the Earth, nor enough temperate zones, to turn the released CO2 back into wood and just have massive forests again.
@@rikk319 what is solution ?
@@tamjansan1154 that's where you come in! figure it out for us
Oh my God this has been the most recurring question of the entirety of my childhood , year and year again these teachers told me the the coal started forming millions of years ago and I can't figure out why oh why does that make it limited
Then don't listen to this guy blind. There are three distinct layers hundreds of millions of years apart in North America.
There are small truths in this presentation, but the overall thesis is wrong out of the gate.
There are mining scientists as geologists you may wish to check out first.
Oh school teachers often have a only a surface knowledge of any one subject, unless they are passionate about a particular subject. Then they may have studied it on their own or watched crap money grab con jobs like this.
@@STho205 - Although I agree that there are inaccuracies in Steve's presentation, you are being unnecessarily harsh in your commenting. One thing I'm sure of, Steve is no 'money-grab con job'. I agree about teachers though....
@@Deebz270 #tree whatever is trying to raise money to pay their staff to talk and travel.
I like trees too. Most do. If presenting a case *they don't have to lie* . When people present such obvious inaccuracies as "science in media" then it causes people to distrust other "science in media".
This was ham handed at best.
@@Deebz270 "Although I agree that there are inaccuracies" Coal mines in USA are mostly open-pit type but for example in my country(Poland) you have mines like "Budryk" where they diging coal from 1290m(4232 feet) below surface... so what part of this video is not misleading? It is sci-fi from the begining to the end...
Most organic matter is not converted into fossil fuels. You need a unique set of circumstances for fossil fuels to form.
I really want "Essence of Wood" on a shirt.
@Hulagan 808 Weirdly hostile for a small joke, relax dude. Not really the thing to be offended to the core about.
I have a 100 and something year old friend whose father was a superior for the National Coal Board in Sheffield. Her father was able to taste coal and tell which seem it was, it was a part of his training. A interesting combination of your recent videos.
4:53 wont help unless after they're grown we cut them and bury them so they can become coal
algae would be much better for this since they grow much faster
you would still need to stop aerobic respiration and methanogenesis for them to become a carbon sink
Well, it’s not supposed to gain us, so much as to the future.. for now, we’re fine, however future humans probably won’t be, and because of this, we can help them a bit
@@CC-ok2kt wont help future humans either, lol
Good point! Why doesn’t steve mention this? I mean he kind of indirectly does, but still kind of to important not to mention
@@pluto8404 An asteroid is way more likely to hit mars than the Earth. And if we can terraform Mars, it's difficult to imagine a catastrophe on Earth that we can't recover from.
As long as the tree stays alive, it will continue to be a carbon sink. And if you think about it, deforestation also helps create the sink, because wood use in books and furniture doesn't re-enter the atmosphere for a much longer time. We need to fix carbon emissions really quickly (but based on the rate of solar cell progress, especially in perovskites, I think we'll manage). If the tree lives 50-100 years before decomposing or burning, technology will have progressed to the point that the newly released CO2 isn't pivotal. Or we'll have damaged the environment irreversibly and further damage would be pretty much irrelevant.
Just a casual 60 million year time window. And I thought the 4 hour window for the cable company was ridiculous.
When 60 million years can be considered the same time.
Hi there, in Geological terms...60 million years is nothing more than a small percentage. Even though to us, it seems like forever.....Peace to my friend.
@@dazuk1969 its about a week on the geological scale =p
Its because the earth has been going for a long time, like 65million years
@@drewb1263 no, the earth is like 3000 years old. And, btw, the earth is flat
@@1320crusier Hi there, i think i upset some people with my post, but at least you seem to know what you are talking about...probably more than me. When i read the earth is 3000 yrs old, 65 million yrs old, Flat ?...i just can't even respond to that...thank you for your reply....Peace.
Well, you answered that question quite well, thank you. I learned something today! 😊
Steve you honestly make some of the best stuff on this site imho. Always engaging and always teaches something new
Hi Raptor. I really couldn't`t agree with you more.
Regards
John ( UK )
Thank you!
There's an app called 'ecosia.' They plant trees for every thing you search on the app. It's like Google but also plants trees.
And they don't save your search history (in case that's something that bothers you)
@DivinexDragoonxRising Do you have a particular reason for thinking that? Doing a quick surface search on google isn't bringing anything to the contrary up.
DivinexDragoonxRising @pmg @divinexdragoonxrising well if it costs the Arbor Day Foundation (the biggest tree planters in the world) $1 to plant a tree, then there’s no way ecosia makes $1 per search, especially if they don’t collect your data. Google doesn’t make anything near $1 per search, and they take every piece of data that exists on you
@@MaxCoplan They do not plant a tree per search. It takes more like 45-50 searches for them to plant a tree.
@Wyatt Watling if someone's planting trees, even if their engine is not as good, I'd still prefer them.
I`m so proud I`ve planted trees since age of 7 and at age 69 still doing it like taking trees and seeds to the shores of artificial lakes here in patagonia and I do it for free, I encourage everyone to do it to save the planet for our offspring
Salute to you, sir.
You have to do that for 60 million years. Planting trees will not get that CO2 out of the atmosphere.
@Richard Davies There is not enough room on this earth. The coal was created over 60 million years by trees. You should calculate it.
Your to be applauded however China is probably wiping out everything you do every second. Keep it up though.
@@vanlendl1 so true..there is only one small rare shrub that uses the type of carbon that bidens 2.2 BILLION POUNDS OF IT THAT HE SPEWED FROM HIS ONE TRIP TO THE CANCELED EARLY POPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING!!! MORE CARBON THAN A MEDIUM SIZE TOWN MAKES IN ONE YEAR!!!
Planted 15 trees this fall. Costed a darn site more than a dollar a piece.
Considering the very specific circumstances for coal to form, I'll go out on a limb and say it is probably rarer than gold in our universe.
Oh yeah. By far.
Probably rarer the any natural element.
Not really, low oxygen/anoxic environments aren't that uncommon.
@@ANTSEMUT1 Wood is pretty fucking uncommon my guy.
It's the reason Aliens visit earth........to collect our rare coal for making priceless intergalactic jewelry.
One of the best natural science videos I have seen (and I wach science videos every day). I had no idea about the history of stone-coal! So cool!
Another "fun fact" - all of those trees dying (and not decomposing) during the Carboniferous era also produced the highest level of atmospheric oxygen - about 35 percent. (Now it's about 20 percent). This is also how insects grew to such gigantic sizes at that time. And, regarding a comment someone made about how planting trees NOW won't eliminate all of that carbon now being released by our coal burning - um....the other part of the "solution", in addition to planting trees,... is to STOP BURNING COAL.
Yeah kind of like if you are out to clean up a flood you first turn off the large tap which caused it... #whatdamcandothat?
@Donald Kasper hey man, you arent supposed to talk about that.
@Donald Kasper You ever read at all ? Or understand the concept of humour ??
@Donald Kasper The buchstaben must dazzle you because a simple joke alludes you completely...
Another fun fact, all the water on earth is billions of years old, it just gets recycled. Meaning that that glass of water you drank used to be dinosaur piss.
I doubt many people know that about coal. At least i didn't. Always love science or natural phenomena explained in such simple and engaging manner. Keep spreading the knowledge and more importantly the curiosity and enthusiasm Steve.
I used to think that process of coal making is an ongoing process. This video has washed off that ignorance. Thank you 🙏
lol I thought it was the dinosaur extinction event. Most of the trees died along with dinos and got turned into coal…
It is ongoing, just the majority of coal comes from this event.
@@geologian5066 yea its frustrating to have such mixed information.
Coal is still being produced, in peat bogs. That only happens in places with special conditions that don't let fungus do its things.
@@2muchofyou it's not really mixed information imo if you imagine with all academic statements: but there are some exceptions.
Trees consume a relatively small amount of co2. Its the oceans that absorb most co2. Sea life consumes co2 and when it dies it sinks to the bottom of the ocean
Right, it comes to mind when looking at the huge mass of all limestone mountain ranges. They're so abundant and all formed in part from CO2 in the seas.
Shellfish are selfish they would lock up all the co2
Um... ok, sure. But what is your point?
Is is insanely easier to plant trees compared with attempting to engineer ocean ecosystems that absorb carbon at a higher rate than the base line.
@@dialecticalmonist3405 we want higher carbon. The base of the climate religion is that carbon is bad. Its wrong.
@@dialecticalmonist3405 with higher carbon trees plant themselves
I know that this seems like a naive question, but what actually is the benefit of planting all these trees?
I realise that the trees sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the affect of global warming, but there are many mitigating factors. I have read that trees in temperate regions do not help at all because the increased light absorption from the trees negates the reduction in CO2, and that this is also true of trees in many colder regions, as trees can absorb light that would otherwise be reflected by snow. Furthermore, planting trees can release carbon stored in the soil and the previous plant life, further negating the positives of planting the trees.
On top of this, the trees are not a long term solution because once they die, almost all of the carbon will be released back into the atmosphere, rendering the ordeal useless.
I can see that planting trees, if done right, could provide a small amount of short term relief, and that if the forest was sustained indefinitely, it could continue to provide that relief. It just seems to me that a far more effective solution is to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels. Once we take carbon which has been locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years and put it into the atmosphere, it is very hard to take back, and forestry is not an effective solution. Instead, it seems that this money would be better spend campaigning for governments to invest in nuclear or wind energy to power our electric grid which would definitely reduce carbon in the atmosphere by more and more every year and have a lasting affect, rather than the questionable benefits of planting these trees.
If you think that any of my thinking here is wrong, please reply to correct me, and take a look at this Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_planting#Role_in_climate_change
+
It's a feel-good PR stunt for millenials
th-cam.com/video/-cPdImejxEQ/w-d-xo.html animals live in them. Idrc about what gain they have for us humans, we’ve been here too long anyways.
There are a bunch good reasons to plant more trees (and especially stop the wholesale cutting down of old forests) but carbon sequestering is not actually among them. In fact *any* carbon sequestering approach that does not bind the carbon into very stable minerals stored in geologically stable sealed caves (think nuclear waste storage) is a very temporary reprieve because it is going to get released back within the next 50-100 years latest when done in any other way. Reducing emissions is the effective way to (eventually) reduce CO2.
@@Thematic2177 I mean, yes. But actually no. The TeamTrees thing started from a TH-camr "Mr.Beast" as far as I know. He does a lot of crazy big stuff all the time, probably seen some of his videos in memes if your into those. He recently got 20 million subscribers and asked for some suggestions on what he should do. His community demanded that he plant 20 Million trees. He accepted and quickly realized this was a completely ridiculous goal. So he started by getting a few friends(6-7) to plant around 300 trees in a day. Then he rounded up about a thousand more to plant a bunch more. Still pretty much impossible to do without a lot more help. So he reached out to TH-camrs and now they are going to do this.
It didn't start as a PR move, more of a celebration of reaching a nice goal. Now they are getting TH-camrs involved, and they aren't saying no because of the PR they will get.
PR is honestly a bad choice of words, millennials correspond to 1/4th the current generational stack, you can't make public relations when you are also the public. W/e
Has to do with exposure and trends. It is popular to be eco friendly even if your perceived eco-friendly-ness isn't really all that effectual.
He is correct though Algae would be far better, however algae causes other problems. Bamboo would likely be one of the better methods as it spreads, but could easily become Invasive if left unchecked.
The problem with campaigning the government for more nuclear and wind (why wind, it's one of the least effecient solar energy sources available is that campaigning is the biggest waste of money I can think of. Invest in nuclear energy and elect smarter politicians that care more about the economical problems and less about the social inequalities. Your not solving the problem, your solving a symptom.
“Trees are (mostly) made of air” was something I didn’t realize until well into adulthood, and it blew my mind! 😊
It's a stretch to say carbon is air.
"Trees are (mostly) made of carbon extracted from air." Better? Seems just as cool to me.@@jayd6224
Otherwise a tree would make holes everytime they grow
0:04 That looks like a charcoal briquet, made last Thursday.
It's a coal briquette, made from compressed coal dust.
@@danc101 Yes, but it still looks like a charcoal briquet.
@@JimFortune looks can be deceptive.
@@danc101 Yup.
You beat smartereveryday and veritaseum by like a minute.
Erik Neumann for me too :)
Well, I added them to my watch later queue, but I watch in reverse order.
I was waiting for someone to say this!
plus veritasium just reuploaded an old video with a minute or two of explaining the teamtrees project. So that is pretty impressive.
Good thing I watched Veritasium's video first, because Steve Mould quickly asks and then promptly answers the question posed in Veritasium's video. Kind of spoils it if you already know the answer.
All the involved TH-camrs are announcing the tree scheme “at the same time”, i.e. within 60 million years of each other...! 😂
After we're all gone, someone will come up with this idea again.... maybe in another 360 m years from now...lol
60 million years is a pretty small time frame for the Universe
here in washington state usa we plant trees where we cut them down.
Why dont you explain how much co2 a mature wood absorves from the air, and how much a cornfield absorves? Its very interesting.
absorbs
@@oldschool1993 english is not my home lenguage but i think all will understand
Most coal was made at the same time...like a single global event covered the Earth in a layer of silt that stopped the wood from decomposing.
It’s called the great flood. It happened around 4,500 years ago.
Micronovs
The lignin-bonded cellulose was deposited over a span of about 60 million years. *Some* was compacted and buried as it was covered with sediment. Over the next 300 million years it was chemically converted mostly into coal, but also into some crude oil, and methane gas.
@@imconsequetau5275 You say that as if it is an absolute fact...but you don't know that. It is just a guess. Nobody observed it and it cann't be repeated. So it is not science. It is just a guess.
@@williammoore6067 while I don't disagree that this is a hypothesis...
... I do disagree that his statement isn't science or scientific. A hypothesis is the way most discoveries in science begin. Whether that discovery aligns with the hypothesis or completely deviates from it, it's still the starting point from much of our scientific understanding.
Soooo.... I'm looking this up now, and according to every source I can find there is nothing that says all coal formed at the same period. In fact, according to the wiki "coal is known from most geological periods".
Is this video just dead wrong?
It exaggerates. The vast majority of coal formed during the Carboniferous period, but it has formed during other periods, and is still forming in some areas. Conditions have to be such that large amounts of vegetation grows but something prevents it from breaking down quickly, for example being submerged in a low oxygen swamp or marsh.
I'm no geologist but my cursory research is finding examples of coal that formed in other periods.
Peat seems to be a major source of what turned into coal for example. Apparently swamps make for good coal forming precursors. Perhaps the water inhibits the process of decay.
I found one source that looks fairly informative:
www.britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuel/Origin-of-coal
The things he said sounded interesting and plausible but he seems to have flubbed the facts rather badly.
Perhaps there were conditions in the period he referred to that made coal formation happen more than in other periods, but he stated things in absolute terms that do not seem correct.
Yes, some of the biggest coal deposits are Jurassic in age, for instance
Not entirely wrong. The creation of coal was ongoing right until basically the present. We have Triassic, Jurassic and Neogene coal seams. We have black coal, brown coal and peat which is being made right now.
55 Million years ago all the Coal and Oil in the North Sea formed. So Steve is dead wrong, and it's scary how easily influenced people are about the environment, when someone sane tries to reason with them, they blank and screams insults at one. Me personally I'm used to people not understanding scientific data, and drawing false conclusions. The Oil and Coal deposits in the North Sea formed due to the biggest theft of CO2 that has ever occurred on planet Earth, The Azolla Incident, where the Entire North Sea which was a lake by that time, was filled with a little fern the size of a mm^3 which not only drained the atmosphere of CO2 but also the Oceans of CO2, and this little plant which doubles it's biomass in 3 days when conditions are perfect, and as slow as 10 days in suboptimal conditions, formed a 30cm/10inch layer covering the entire North Sea, it lowered the CO2 levels from 3200 ppm to just slightly above 290 ppm this process took roughly 4 years. In 10 years it would have covered a surface so large that you could have covered each planet in the solar system with these plants. Well the plants that formed died over time and sank to the bottom of the sea, and mixed with sediments from rivers and slowly but surely all the CO2 which was drained from the atmosphere sank to the bottom of the North Sea and stayed there.
Thank you for not using little video clips to match a word in your script. A lot of my brain is used to evaluate or decipher the reason I am shown a pretty lady experiencing an epiphany.
ONE TREE, for the mother's pride
ONE TREE, for the times we've cried
ONE TREE, gotta stay alive
I will survive
ONE TREE, for the city streets
ONE TREE, for the hip-hop beats
ONE TREE, oh I do believe
ONE TREE is all we need!!
At first I was afraid
I was petrified
I kept thinking
I could never be coal without you by my side
(pressure and all that)
There's so many lyrics that match.
Technically all the lyrics to I will survive fit here.
You wouldn't even need to change them.
The second time I have seen this.
NO the plants do not split CO2 at all, the bond is really strong, it splits water and the hydrogen bonds with the CO2 to create the sugars to grow, and the O2 comes from the oxygen in the water.
Really grinds my gear too
When is a 60-million-year time span equivalent to simultaneity? Oh right --- speaking geologically.
The ratio of 360 million to 300 million is not a large ratio, that's the point.
Compared to the billions of ages earth has been around 60 mil is pretty dang short
@@austinbryan6759 1/66th of the span of the earth isn't anything to sneeze at.
@Donald Kasper I was joking.
Yea, except it wasn't 60 Million years ago as ALL coal has C-14 in it many times greater than the error of testing nothing. Just as all limestone has C14 in it. Just as all oil has C14 in it... Either C14 radioacitve decay massively slowed down by MANy orders of magnitude, or their 60Million year age is complete BS. Or you play make believe that C14 magically swims around beneath the earth surface... The only thing we do know is that all the coal around the world is generally composed of nearly identical material.
Oh my god, I have known about photosynthesis for years, and have enjoyed fires all my life, but I have never fully released the whole process. I had intense waves of realization when you connected the dots between separating Carbon and O2, storing the solar energy as carbon, and then reintroducing the 02 and the carbon to release the solar energy as fire and recombing the molecules into CO2. I knew those things independently, but never connected the whole process together. Thank you for this video!
Probably just as most people. The problem becomes major when supposed "scientists" fail to connect so obvious dots and talk about idiotic technologies to sequester CO2 from the air...
That's why almost all the energy we consume comes from the sun.
It is called the Carbon Cycle.
Well, I've always had the understanding the peat bogs were simply "young" coal fields.
If they get buried deep enough (to create sufficient pressure), they will be
@j mcmann If it isn't in the bible it isn't true.
@j mcmann lol so your answer is what magic? What else happens? Some sort of chemical reaction/change has to occur, what is the wood going to remain completely identical to before it got buried under tons of sediment.
@j mcmann so your answer is still because magic.
@@OldBenOne it doesn’t say anything about computers existing or working in the Bible but here you are watching TH-cam
I'm so glad I saw this, and that it explains one thing that I've been curious about for years.
So what I'm getting from this is that no Dinosaurs (or their fossilized remains) were hurt in the making of modern-day coal or oil deposits.😜
Correct. Coal predates the earliest dinosaurs by about 100 million years. Hence no dinosaur fossils in coal deposits, but lost of plant and insect fossils. Mostly imprints.
That's oil 💯👌🏻
When I was in elementary school in the 1970s a teacher told us that oil was the product of decayed dinosaurs. I then asked her why their fossils were close to the surface and oil was so deep. Crickets.
@@slick-px4pq Oil does not come from dinosaurs. It comes from _marine_ organisms, zoo- and phytoplankton that lived in shallow seas hundreds of millions of years before dinosaurs. Geologists know this and look for oil in areas that show signs of having been dried up ancient sea beds (for example, salt deposits).
@@olmostgudinaf8100 yes, I know.
This is probably the most interesting fact I learned in the last year.
Here is another: Yea, except it wasn't 60 Million years ago as ALL coal has C-14 in it many times greater than the error of testing nothing. Just as all limestone has C14 in it. Just as all oil has C14 in it... Either C14 radioacitve decay massively slowed down by MANy orders of magnitude, or their 60Million year age is complete BS. Or you play make believe that C14 magically swims around beneath the earth surface... The only thing we do know is that all the coal around the world is generally composed of nearly identical material.
How does the presence of c14 in other things disprove that coal is mostly from the Carboniferous?
@@boobgoogler Same reason coal with its high proportion of C14 disproves their ages. You cannot have something millions of years old and have C14 in it. Why? Its half life is only ~5700 years. If the object(Coal, limestone etc) was made up of 100% C14 when buried(nothing even comes close), then C14 should be undetectable BELOW the error threshold in the testing equipment in anything older than 150,000 years to 200,000 years. All Coal, limestone, oil, that has ever been tested .... they ALL have C14 in them many times greater than the error threshold of the testing equipment.
Lets repeat that shall we? ALL coal/oil/limestone etc which has EVER been tested from EVERYWHERE around the world, has C14 in it many times greater than the error detection threshold of calibrated radiocarbon dating equipment. Therefore, due to simple thing called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, Their ages hypothesized for Coal/Oil/Limestone are complete BS as they all fail the C14 radiocarbon dating test.
@@w8stral - If what you say is true, that ends the discussion. But I would like to see references to prove that C-14 is common in fossil fuels and in limestone etc. Can you give citations to scientific papers supporting this? I will check out any that you provide.
A quick google search of "coal and carbon 14" led me to several pages that said the exact opposite. The Wikipedia pages on C-14 said several interesting things, and give citations to research supporting them. According to articles on 'Carbon-14' and on the 'Suess effect', oil, gas, and coal contain so little C-14 that decreased C-14 in the air's CO2 is used as a measure of how much of that CO2 has come from burning fossil fuels because "the carbon from fossil fuels that is returned to the atmosphere through combustion is depleted in both C-13 and C-14 compared to atmospheric carbon dioxide." Researchers also rely on petroleum samples with especially low levels of C-14 when they need a standard for carbon compounds without any.
It says that carbon-14 is quite rare actually. Carbon-12 makes up 99% of all carbon on Earth; carbon-13 makes up 1%; and carbon-14 (the radioactive one), occurs in trace amounts, making up less than 2 atoms for every 1 trillion (10 to the 12th power) atoms of carbon in the atmosphere. There is also information about the formation of C-14 from Nitrogen-14 by cosmic rays and lightning, from previous nuclear testing, and from nuclear power plants.
@@clearasmud376 Yes C14's presence does end the discussion and it is utterly disgustingly embarrassing of anyone who claims to be rational is still claiming coal/oil/NG/limestone are Millions of years old. There is no way possible that ALL solid non gaseous hydrocarbons around the world irregardless of depth have C14 above the error threshold of all forms of Radiocarbon dating. Either Half life of C14 is massively massively wrong as in an order of magnitude wrong, or the millions of years is wrong. Well, C14's half life, no one is questioning and we have historical dating of objects which aligns perfectly with C14's half life. Likewise not one single person has come up with a way to transport or change Carbon 12 in situ to C14 in limestone, oil, NG, coal, peat, etc. Everyone has known about this gargantuan discrepancy for well over 50 years now. Yet text books and so called "scientists" still trot out this gargantuan lie for religious reasons can be the only explanation.
I remember looking at a big tree and trying to work out why it doesn't sink into a sink hole where the mass was derived from the earth, and the same thing finally hitting me after a few days: it's mostly made of air.
But my correction I eventually realized is that, by mass, it's probably mostly made of "ground" after all - that by-definition wet stuff that flows *through* the ground, thus not leaving a void when sucked up.
You were mostly correct initially: the tree is formed mostly of carbon, and that carbon is formed from carbon dioxyde in the air. That said, some water is also used in the process and become part of the mass of the tree, but it's a much smaller part.
The lignin theory is disputed. A 2016 study largely refuted this idea, finding extensive evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and that shifts in lignin abundance had no impact on coal formation. They suggested that climatic and tectonic factors were a more plausible explanation.[
Thank u... now i dont have to refute this childish pretense of science.
Might want to give the article: "Delayed fungal evolution did not cause the Paleozoic peak in coal production" (Nelsen et al. 2016).
When the education is so good, I catch myself practice-teaching this to a fictional audience. Yes, talking to myself.
This is Soo true. I know I understand something really well when I am pretending to give my Ted talk on it
Haha yes!
Me too. I always remember this quote which says that inorder to understand something full teach it someone and if you get stuck somewhere, it means that you haven't understood it enough so reteach it to yourself. And you will finally get it. I think the quote is from Richard Feynman.
I suspected I’m not unique, but its really touching you guys would ADMIT it, too 😭 Let me know how that TED Talks goes 🤣
Because this way you solidify it in your memory. Or you can rewrite it on the paper, but who got time for this
Pretty trippy to think that all the carbon from the gas and coal we burn, used to be in the planet's atmosphere...
Yeah, but critically, *not all at once!*
Yeah, that’s the root of the problem.
@@Corbald Actually the CO2 must have been in the atmosphere all at once for the trees to extract it and convert it into wood. Unless there were other large natural sources of CO2 which kept the atmosphere "topped up".
@@iancastleton9052 I mean... it _was_ before the 'Great Oxygenation' event, but it's important to US, now, that it isn't :P
Apparently, trees almost wiped themselves out by sucking all of the CO2 from the atmosphere. Before the evolution of lignin-eating fungi, there wasn't a carbon cycle, so trees could have made the earth uninhabitable by CO2-breathing plants. I've heard a similar claim made about calcium carbonate today: life forms can't easily break it down, so it just accumulates, potentially exhausting the supply of CO2 in the air. We're at something of a low point of CO2 concentration if you look at the last few hundred million years.
Excellent video answering the question I had since childhood and no one could answer..... Great job....
Trees, the original plastic. So we only need 60 million years before that problem is solved? Probably cheaper to wait it out. /s
WELL, ALL COAL IN MINECRAFT IS GENERATED AT THE SAME TIME, SO I'D SAY THE CLAIM IS ACCURATE
That's arguable, the *seed* was generated at the same time, the coal was generated in chunks later on from it.
@@omri9325 I was thinking about the seed when commenting, but I see your point. I suppose the chunk loading is simply your view of the horizon. The world, including all the coal, are already there :3
WELL THIS COMMENT IS IN ALL CAPS SO I'D SAY IT'S ACCURATE
@@Greennoob2 *NO U*
Actually science shows the earth is constantly making coal, natural gas and crude oil as it is all an ongoing process. Some ideas sound nice or cool, but reality is truth. After humans discovered how the earth makes crude oil from plants and kelp, they started growing things to make oil they call bio-fuels. The earth still has tectonic plate shifts, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Wood (trees) get buried and the process to make coal can start with some of those trees. We can take a 55 gallon drum, throw in some wood and burn it and wile it is burning, we cover the drum with a tiny hole in the top and keep a fire under the drum. Tomorrow we uncover the drum and we have a 55 gallon drum full of coal. The video speaker only speaks about trees that fall over on the ground. He does not address the millions of trees that were buried from volcanic eruptions. For just one, see in the Cascade Range, Mount St. Helens eruption.
The speaker also is not to smart when it comes to Co2 and Climate Change.
He severely ignores scientific facts.
Science Facts; Earth Atmosphere Make Up
Nitrogen 78% (780,00 PPM)
Oxygen 21% (210,000 PPM)
Co2 0,04% (400 PPM)
Oxygen and nitrogen 99% (990,000 PPM)
Argon less than 1%
The speaker things 0.04% of the Atmosphere is a threat.
Co2 is 1/3 Carbon and 2/3 Oxygen
1/3 of 0.04 = 0.013 Carbon is 0.013% of the Atmosphere.
Humans produce 70% of that Carbon
70% of 0.013 = 0.009
Human Carbon Footprint is 0.009% of the Atmosphere.
0.009% is driving Climate to an Out of Control Warming?
Now some will try to say, But Co2 is a Greenhouse Gas. It is a ring of 3 atoms.
Really? 3 atoms make a ring? You sure 3 atoms do not make a Triangle?
You sure three atoms don't make a line?
*
* * * * * I don't see a ring there but I do see a triangle and I see a line.
Co2 (400 PPM) N2 O2 (990,000 PPM)
So your telling me that * * * in a 0.04% measure is greater radiance than * * and * * of 99% quantity?
Now according to the EPA, NASA and the IPCC N2o (Nitrous Oxide) has a GWP 281 times that than Co2
Co2 Global Warming Potential is 1
N2o Global Warming Potential is 281 (256-298 and the mean is 281)
N2o is 2 Nitrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Nitrogen and Oxygen is 99% of the Atmosphere.
What is the GWP of all that Nitrogen and Oxygen? Do they thin it is Zero? They have no radiance?
What is the GWP of Nitrogen?
What is the GWP of Oxygen?
This is how Science works people.
O
3:30 This one blew my mind when I found the answer. Trees are made of air!
And the Sun!?
@@arnehofoss9109 No. Trees contain no part of the sun whatever.
They use energy from the sun to break up carbon dioxide. They incorporate the carbon into their structure (how they are made of air) and kick out the useless (to them) oxygen so we can use it to make high quality chopping devices to chop down trees.
Ina sense, somewhat true for human also. When a obese person loses fat, 84 percent of that is lost via breathing out co2.
@@DEEPANJANBISWAS OMG, Trees (all plants really) are made of humans!!!
Vegetarians are cannibals!
Demand for 100% recycled paper contributes to CO2 emissions in two ways. The processes used to break down PCW into usable pulp several greenhouse gassed. And when there is less demand for sustainably sourced pulp wood fewer trees are planted. We should use FSC (Forest Sustainablity Conference) paper as much as possible.
5:09 , That's the subtlest announcement i have seen among all the #teamtrees videos, LoL
Was the "Kingsford edge" made then too, that looks like a charcoal bricket!
Right! And charcoal is man made by heating wood with minimal oxygen in less than a day.
BIG MIKE MEDIA 😂. This man, his producer, camera man, make up artist and art director clearly have never actually seen coal.
I used to have some good sized pieces of real coal and I used to tell my kids when they were little that their daddy got them from Santa Claus when I was so bad of a kid
Fossils form where there is a lack of decomposition, usually when the material has been rapidly buried in a watery environment. An alternative reason for the lack of decomposition of lignin by fungi and bacteria would be an overwhelming volume of lignin being rapidly buried in watery environment during a very short period of time. A catastrophic global disaster such as The Great Flood could have easily formed all of the coal at the same time.
Ah yes, 60 million years. That short period of time.
Yes, that is correct, approx 4000 years ago.
We've gone from the sublime (Mould) to the ridiculous (Murray). Dear me.
Not sure if bait, but here goes:
There never was a worldwide great flood after land was conquered by plants, this would clearly show up in the sediment record. The same sediment record that shows us that all of the coal wasn't formed at the same time (as do other, independent methods like radiometric dating of associated minerals) but over millions of years, which also leads to different qualities or "stages"of coal, a process that is understood quite well.
Then the sediment record is not homogeneous all over the world, although it has some world wide markers that help align it in time. A global flood, btw. would be another such marker, but is nowhere to be found. The sediment record being location specific shows us that many (but not all) coal deposits stem from a time before Gondwana broke apart. As we can directly measure the movement of plates today, this gives us another clue to the time having passed since then.
Lastly, while legends of great floods are to be expected from a species often settling near water, the origins of the specific legend of "The Great Flood" you probably refer to can be convincingly traced to a local flood somewhere in Mesopotamian flood plain.
@@LeGrandMort MOST of the world's civilisations have RECORDS of there having been a great flood, and it would be EXTREMELY unlikely for them all to have gathered together over MANY thousands of years, and "conspired" to create a lie.
Believe the "long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" nonsense of you want, but watch some Kent Hovind videos (if you TRULY believe in truth being propagated) and see what you say then.
Saw this for the first time 5 years afyer posting and it's still refreshingly fascinating. Not heard of this before!
"Same period", perhaps, but "same time" has a bit more immediate connotation than 60 million years.
I mean at this scale 60 million years is basically nothing
Would be interesting to see a follow-up video on how many trees where planted, and how many actually survived ....
When I worked as a gas delivery driver I was amazed to find out the company I worked for made a number of gases, literally, by extracting them from the atmosphere. Then later saddened to find out the most popular gases used required much, much less greener approaches to production.
There is nowhere but the atmosphere to obtain the noble elements (helium, neon, argon, radon, etc.), since they do not react with other elements to produce compounds, and all exist in the gaseous state.
@@lvcsa1165 I think some do get generated from radioactive decay in certain heavy elements that are in the ground - when you buy a house there may well be a radon risk survey as it can build up underground and if it leaks out, it can be deadly.
Yes, you're right, there are several isotopes of radon. The important one is Rn-222, which is a member of the U-238 series. Rn-222 has a half-life of 3.8 days, so it has to be continuously generated to stay around.
It seems to me that what he's holding is not the mined coal, but a piece of compressed charcoal, which is probably a few years old at most... not 300000000 yo.
Actually Steve, you are the first video I have heard mention this.
It's wierd... Such an interesting explanation
One of the episodes of Cosmos (newer one with NDT) went into pretty good detail about the carboniferous period, and the massive fire it led to in the ?Permian? extinction. That this also supplied the coal we use now was more of a side note, but great details. This was also the major flipflop between carbon dioxide and oxygen dominating the atmosphere (behind nitrogen, obviously) and the period where we got arthropods nearing B-movie dimensions. (may not be attack of the 50 foot grasshopper, but millipedes larger than the family dog are memorable)
maybe because it's not true?
I'm quite sure that brickett make of corn was made this or at most last year.
Which is why it is correctly called charcoal. Coal and charcoal are different things :)
Tell him that!
Siddhant Rimal what he was holding was charcoal, not coal.
Love the way you explain things. And very interesting fact!
I have worked several seams of coal at different levels of the mountain. One seam was the purest coal I've seen. Highly prized for metalurgic
coal. At the top of the mountain was a different type of coal. So it's hard fore to believe your premise. If the bogs of Europe sank and layers of sand and shells built up on it, it would become coal.
Watched - fascinated - donated 20 trees [thumbs-up]
I'm a coal miner. I see several layers of coal being mined. It is not all the same age.
The statement you make is misleading. If the coal is in the same layer its reasonable to assume all the coal in that layer is the same age. When the seam of coal is separated by rock it woukd be absurd to assume that coal is the same age.
The visual illusions of charcoal is also misleading. Charcoal that you show in the charcoal is a man made product of mostly wood charcoal and clays.
How long time separates those layers? Are there different types of coal in those layers? What freaky shit could have happened on the ground to separate layers?
@@petercarlson811 The "Mary Lee" seam will outcrop on the surface just south of central Alabama at the periphery of the Black Warrior Basin. The money seam of Blue Creek coal that my company mines is an avereage of 1700 feet deep at the mine location. The two seams are separated by a "middleman", a layer of incredibly hard rock that will range from 3 to 6 feet thick.
I do not know the time the earths geology took to create the middleman strata, however, it is apparent that the 2 seams were separate chronological events.
There is a theory that is reasonable. There was a huge catastrophic flood that swept biological material into areas and rapidly covered them with sediment.
People dont like this theory as it aligns too closely with the Biblical account.
john ruby It’s incredible how desperately these terrible theories are fabricated, despite how obvious and logical a global flood really is. If God wasn’t attached to it, nobody would hesitate to entertain and adopt the theory. Every geological phenomenon plainly abides by the theory of hydrologic sorting. Every. Single. Time.
@@evanchi9460 I didn't see evidence of flooding and I don't support that hypothesis. If every seam of coal was due to a catastrophic flood then the floods happened several times. Besides where did all the water go? We're on a closed loop.
Steve, I wish you were my lecturer, you have such an amazing way of explaining concepts. As a teacher myself I’m going to have to up my game!
Thank you for caring. The older we get the more we learn and have amazing storys/concepts to tell. Every thing can be interesting if you look at it from the right angle❤️
I agree Tobias, Everything is interesting if you look at it from the RIGHT angle. Not from an environmentalist nutwing lunacy angle, As if planting more trees will help anything, first of all these organizations don't plant trees where they are needed, they don't refertilize the soil around these saplings they plant, they are literally the worst idiots alive, Oh yeah let's plant new trees, where should we plant them, Oh in a forest where the soil is already rich and we will do as small of an impact on the environment as possible. Did you know that Sahara desert was once forested, did you know that once the Whole of Iraq which is extremely barren now, was the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION and a fucking paradise on Earth, filled with trees and plants...
It's a sad fact when me a 27 year old guy who loves history knows more than everyone else alive at this moment apparently about the fucking climate.
You need soil, you need water, you need plantlife and you need to shelter these things from the environment aka Shelter it from WIND and most importantly prevent deforestation, because if there is things that most people don't understand is that Trees exist to protect the soil underneath them from the environment.
Oh and CO2 is actually a net contributor to plant life growth and stability, and every nutcase lunatic out there screams less CO2 it's so dangerous we don't need it at all. With less CO2 we're gonna have it a lot worse than we have it now, Winters will be longer, crop harvest will fail more often, trees will drain the Water from the ground, the soil will dry up, the wind will erode it away, and last but not least you'll end up with a barren desert. It's the same as if you actually deforested a place, because then the wind will also barren the place, just ask Iceland how many years it has taken to reforest the place. They lost over 80% of their soil to erosion caused by deforestation.
@@livedandletdie Is this necessaire?
I just wanted to encourage a stanger so kids don't have to memorize stupid list, but have a real connection and insight to matters that will let them have a nice future.
To your story, i don't care what you think you know! If you think all others are stupid and only know the matter by side reference, chances are that you don't understand our thinking and likely have diffrent intents. We will never see each others side if we have diffrent goals.
Reforestation of a dessert is a thing and has been done(Napoléon/west france). If it is the right solution? I don't know.
Co2 is a problem because we are responsible for it. We know somewhat what happend in the past, so it's easier to predict the world if it is more like it was and not how it can be.
We want to solve a problem we know, not have 1000 of problems the likely never existed.
I hope for the next generation that they will solve some problems and not just say it was always like this why should we pay for the last generations greed.
Buy more lumber! it sequesters the carbon in the new house you build, but also if it's US or Canadian lumber then the timber company plants twice as many trees as it cuts down. Not only is it mandated by regulations, it's in their interests too, as then they have more timber to harvest when the trees mature.
One issue - the amount of forest cover in the planet has INCREASED in the last 50 years, particularly in Europe, North America and Africa. The greening of the Sahel is a major change. So while there are places like Brazil and Southeast Asia where tree cutting exceeds planting, it may not actually be as bad as some believe.
This is probably because of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that plants use as food. The most prolific period for life in earth's history had 10x our current amount of CO2.
@@jerensteffen clearly. And I guess that is the point. Incresing CO2 is leading to a greening of the planet. We used to call that a negative feedback, before all negative feedbacks were banned and we were only allowed to talk about positve feedbacks.
When reading the wiki article on deforestation you get mixed numbers on global tree cover, from a decrease of 4% to an increase of 7% on different timescales. I don't kow which numbers are most reliable...
this is the most interesting bit of knowledge i've learned this year, thank you!
Except it is not true
"It's a crazy idea, but it just might work Jim!"
He's dead Jim . . .but still hasn't decomposed after sixty million years.
Geological layers doesn't tell us stories, we come up with stories to try and explain what we see in the geological layers...
Anti-Mozart was one of the best decomposers
Scott Hannan Nerd!
Mozart is a decomposing composer!
This video was so good and interesting, I'm actually gonna go and plant a tree because of it.
Amazing content, Steve.
my yard produces them by the thousands every year. seems that water and seeds do that with a little dirt.
Steve, Excellent ! So you've also proven the saying, "If you want to learn about a subject, phrase it online as a statement". People will trip over one another to correct you" LOL
Excellent insight! However, it seems immoral to state things as facts if you are actually just trying to drum up enough controversy to learn more about the subject. Spreading disinformation is harmful.
@@kentslocum I meant that it's a way to encourage the "team concept", where everybody contributes.
Just donated $20. Thanks for drawing our attention to this initiative!