I've watched a previous video with Natalie Shakhovia a few years ago, concerning this topic. You presented the facts beautifully for us non-scientists. Great work.
Natalia Shakhova is incompetent. Her Geoscience paper this video is based on has been shown to be filled with errors in math, false claims about he work other scientists and her conclusions are "absurd" - quote from the rebuttal of this nonsense in Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384 by Brett F. Thornton, one of the actual scientists she slandered.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 No doubt that there are scientific research disputes when it comes to predictions, etc, but it is obvious that melting permafrost is another positive feedback to rising global temperatures.
@@davidleahy6141 I appreciate your response. I address your second point further below. ___You first point is important. This > Not a matter of "disputes" < - this is a matter of gross negligence on the part 1) Natalia's team, 2) the reviewers of her article for Geoscience, and 3) the Editors of Geoscience for not having competent reviewers in the first place for a "Special Issue" on the subject. In fact Brett F. Thornton, takes to task all three in his rebuttal Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384. Just skim it and you will be disgusted at the 1) the number and nature of her errors and 2) the gross and misleading exaggerations in her conclusions, 3) that it was published at all, let alone in a "Special Issue." Brett notes in his rebuttal that Natalia Shahkova et. al. in the Geosciences paper this video is based makes < "a number of false statements"> and he then corrects both her responses and misreading of her own data and her hysterical and inaccurate conclusions. The problem with propagating Natalia's myths: 1) it slanders science, confusing people and damaging the credibility of competent researcher and their work, which Harms Real Efforts at combating CC.____ 2) it harms people psychologically causing depression and despondency._______ 3) some people end up wasting their lives by falling prey to well known con artists like cult leader Guy McPherson and a group called "Deep Adaptation," both of whom take advantage of the general public’s scientific illiteracy and prey on their emotional lability. ____Both Guy McPherson and "Deep Adaptation" are No Different than your run of the mill televangelist and worse, they are like Creationists "Dr". Henry Morris and "Dr" Duane Gish - scientists who use their credentials to lend an air of credibility but then deliberately misrepresent the science to keep their con going. _________Guy and the Deep Adaptation people pervert science to their own ends while the televangelist/Creationists pervert religion to their own ends. I have no problem if people want to use spiritual or religions means to cope with and and combat CC, but I have a Very Real Problem when they slander science to deliberately mislead people using emotion-driven, data-lacking dystopic points of view for recruitment purposes. _____To your second point - yes there many positive feedbacks at work that we need to be concerned about and monitor. And in fact Arctic Methane is one of them. However we do climate science and ourselves a grave disservice by grossly misrepresenting these threats in two ways. First, CC Deniers use that Against Us to say scientists are lying. Second, regular people become disillusioned and confused when they learn they've been mislead and then they give up because they feel betrayed and, bc they cannot distinguish btwn competent and incompetent science.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 Brett Thorton was debunked by the recent Laptev Sea study. Source apportionment of methane escaping the subsea permafrost system in the outer Eurasian Arctic Shelf 2021
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Thank you very much for that reference! I have not been paying any attention to CC at all lately, there only so much time in this 3dt.exe goopverse of ours, and sooo much to do, learn and experience :). Anyway, the results of that paper are obviously Not good news - specifically the thermogenic origin of the methane. Although tbh, I do not know "how bad" it really is, as in, how much of a clear and present danger it poses. I'd appreciate it if you let me know as more data and discussion becomes public. And again, thank you. >__BUT___< Re. "debunked" = To be clear, Brett Thorton et. al. was Not claiming methane was Not being released - in fact his research says it is. He WAS saying there is insufficient data to make the claims made by Shakhova et. al. in the Geoscience paper that this particular video focuses on. Furthermore, the paper you reference > Does Not Nullify < the very legitimate criticisms by Thorton et. al. of Shakhova et. al. group's Extremely Sloppy-borderline incompetent work, and their misreading of data of other scientists, and Libelous Claims made towards other scientists in the field in this paper. Read his rebuttal and you will see very clearly what I mean. Again To Be Clear - Bret Thorton et. al. criticisms of the 1) sloppy work of and libelous made by Shakhova et. al., 2) reviewer's negligence prior to publication, and 3) Geoscience for publishing it without competent review and then not retracting it when made aware of the sloppy work, misreading of data, and libelous claims ALL STILL STAND. That is simply fact. Sadly > IF < the individual who made this video: 1) actually understood the science, 2) had any integrity, and 3) CARED ABOUT ACTUALLY INFORMING HIS AUDIENCE, instead of MISINFORMING his audience, he could have done a competent job with this video. For example, he did an Excellent Job of explaining the processes at work -Kudos! BUT the individual who made this video Should have Issued a Very Clear Disclaimer when Geosciences published the Criticisms made by Thorton et. al. Specifically, he should have issued a disclaimer in the start of the video, and immediately in print below the title of the video, that Made it Very Clear that the claims made by the paper were based on research of questionable value, and that the authors of the paper misread the data of other scientists, made false claims about the data and motivations of other scientists, and that the reviewers of the paper Fucked Up Very Badly, and that Geosciences is a Business as much If Not More than a clearinghouse disseminating scientifically accurate information. Note - there is a LOT of controversy about retraction of articles of dubious quality bc of threats of lawsuits of authors of articles of dubious quality. So I can understand Geosciences reticence at retracting this paper. However, this paper is so bad, and the libel so obvious, any attempt by Shakhova et. al. to sue over retraction in a court of law would have been thrown out before it reached the court room. IOW, it would have been a Very Small price for Geosciences to pay, in order to maintain the Credibility of their publication, and of The Fucking SCIENCE ITSELF. So, anyway, keep up the good work and again, I'd appreciate it if you let me know when more info becomes available to us Mushrooms growing out here in the dark.
It was a press conference by Natalia Shakhova in 2012 I believe, that first got me interested in climate change. I remember having stumbled upon this by accident, she seemed extremely concerned about what was happening on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Having caught my interest I delved some more and noted she and her team were being widely pilloried by the scientific community and by some in the climate activism community. This was at a time when making statements about the more extreme and severe effects of climate change were being downplayed for a number of (not very good) reasons. In the intervening period her concerns have been validated as almost all the observations have confirmed that the effects are all at the most severe, worst case scenarios.
Nothing has actually been validated because methane (CH4) emissions continue at ~0.4 GtC / year which is a lot less than the 38 GtC in a huge burst over a few years that Mister Think claims Natalia Shakhova's latest paper indicates is very likely, or is somewhat likely, or is a little bit likely, or is a tiny bit likely, whatever the paper's conclusion actually is.
This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience - I notified the maker of the video. >> See my response to __David Leahy__ in these comments for more details.
Great and balanced video per usual. One small hitch- the initial potency of CH4 is approximately 120x during its first year, 115x after 5 years and ~105x after 10 years. The 80x applies more on a 20 year timescale. This is a very minor point though, as due to methane degradation the full forcing or maximum temperature growth from a "pulse" would likely not be reached. Edit: I realized some people may want a source for this claim. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf It is from chapter 8 of the IPCC 5 assessment report. You can see the varying potency on figure 8.29. Some may think the IPCC is conservative, but this is mostly for the models used. The physical science is top-notch and extremely reliable. I learned quite a bit from this video, please keep them coming!
If you google Methyl hydrate extraction or similar phrases, you'll find lots of pdfs and articles on the very subject. This has been going on for years, with hundreds of millions of dollars of research going on. Since 2009 it has been law in the US that the energy agencies have to report to Congress annually on the progress of this research. The US Navy planning documents since 2014 for Artic strategy assume a melting of the ice by 2030 sufficient for drilling, mining, transport and tourism to take place regularly. In other words, there are people and companies out there that want global warming to happen, so that they can extract the resources of the Artic and ultimately, the Antarctic. In 2017 Japan trialled CH4 extraction from methyl hydrates off their shores. In 2018, there was an attempt to lift the international ban on resource extraction in Antarctica. It failed at the UN, but no doubt the planet-eaters will be back. Yes, these hydrates are not just in the Arctic, they are all over the ocean floor, and at some point they could all defrost. There are craters all over the place on the seabeds around the world where they have defrosted violently in previous warming eras.
In Australia . A public majority is now trying to convince our Govt. that more action is necessary....but it's not actually a real a Government anymore...it's more like an International franchise dealing in our resources sector .-with Faith Mining ,Media Landscaping and Sovereignty Extraction services, it's forte. The Head Office is overseas somewhere..but we're not sure like I said ..they just dont answer our calls !
A majority?? Yeah sorry wishful thinking, otherwise the streets would be blockaded. But that hasn't happened for years the last ongoing blockade was the 1990 tramways strike with 250 trams parked in Melbourne for a month. To many fucking landlords and day traders these days - half my family think they're green whilst owning huge houses and traveling overseas yearly, all a bunch of money hungry arseholes, my fridge has 4 doors but it's soooo good for the environment.. Hypocritical wankers about sums up most Australians these days.
@@JustHaveaThink I don't think a change of goverbent would have helped. Both major parties here are deeply entrenched in the annals of corporate businesses that their environmental policies are not that different and the alternative "green" party defines itself with internal squabbling and grubbing for power. More than ever before, Australia needs leadership with conviction and intelligence, and we have no candidates with such attributes. As for the population, it behaves as expected given the cultural environment devoid of any clear and rational thinking.
@@campbellbamble5138 I have to agree MM, although I think we could keep those 4 door fridges, SUV's and other energy burning monstrosities if we focused our attention on solar/wind energy and storage systems development. I did a back of the envelope calculation that showed we could collect all the energy we use in Oz (Coal, petrochemical and gas for both energy generation and transport) with a 14km x 14km solar array (distributed over all of Australia) with suitable energy storage to match.
@@MiniLuv-1984 We've been able to do it for a couple of decades first argument against it was cost - then base load then efficiency, all half truths that could be worked around. As efficiency nor cost matter in relation to a livable planet plus we had an extended boom period and instead of building on it we (as a country) were stripped of assets. We once had sovereign wealth to rival Norway but we've allowed successive government to sell everything so the commons are pretty much a thing of the past.
It was 2013 or 2014 that I saw a movie "Arctic Death Spiral, the Methane Time Bomb" which caused my climate anxiety. That movie was a clinical study of Post-Traumatic Shock, actually ongoing traumatic shock. Nathalia is my hero, and I think that we have to listen to her. She was almost in tears along with almost every other climate scientist when they filmed those interviews. This was a great video you have done, I'll put the word out.
Thanks Lawrence. I'm glad to hear the video was OK (although I wish the subject matter was more optimistic) - and I'm very grateful for your support. All the best. Dave
It's amazing how many people who are oblivious about what is happening in the Arctic. Even when you try to inform them they just don't want to know and some even think that you are loopy. This does not look good for the world's future at all.
Internot, because of solar panels and LEDs, lighting is not a problem, if you have a light bill, you’re doing something wrong, Air conditioning,heating and transportation are things we need to improve on, Technology is getting better. pollution and wars are something we should put more concern on
Fossil fuel company propaganda has gotten a lot more sophisticated since then. Remember, ONLY you making different choices like car pooling and driving slower will stop climate change. There is no other options. Actually Exxon is helping by pumping billions of tons of carbon out of the ground. Because reasons!
I've been paying attention to Natalia Shakova since I heard Guy McPherson quote her data in 2015. She's the lead Scientist for the International Arctic Research Centre. I'm glad she's getting more attention. If you can't see that her research is so much more dire than anyone is willing to admit then I don't know what to say. It's so long been good to know ya time very soon..
Natalia Shahkova's is a hack. Her Geoscience paper that this video is based on was rebutted and shown to be Full of Errors, and False Claims about other scientist's work - see the rebuttal at Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384. Worse, her group "publishes" hysterical claims in "The Guardian" - which were later debunked by numerous scientists at Climatefeedback and Scientistwarning. Also, Guy McPherson is nothing but a cult figure - I remember him calling for the end of the world in 2012 back in the Peak Oil days in the mid-2000s. I'm amazed he is still fooling people. But then again, I'm amazed televangelists manage to stay in business too.
You are a great presenter. I learned something new from this. I hadn't thought about the shelves under the sea containing so much organic material from previous terrestrial life. And much of these hydrates are in solid form presently in vast amounts on the ocean floor. A slight average warming of the sea releases these and everything that was locked up in the hydrate stable zone. In Canada, we are already seeing northern taiga tree die-offs as the underlying permafrost melts and presumably saturates the roots. It's overwhelming and sometimes my only hope is that the models are hyperbole. It would seem that they are very conservative. Things are changing. This is a silent, slow motion meteorite impact that we seem only able to study document and revise predictive models right up to the point where there is nothing we can do about it. I was learning about this in the late 70's and 80's, yet here we are. I suppose it would be easier to accept if it was a natural cycle that we had no control over. Hard to separate "belief" from "science" when no single person could possible comprehend the complexity of all these interacting cycles . However, my gut and limited science background tends to agree with the majority - we have a hand in doing it to ourselves. Hard to look at the next generation in the eye with that realization. Nothing- not even a growing economy is worth that price. It's such a shame that we don't inherit memory as a part of our genome. If we had the accumulated memories of millennia, I wonder if we would still walk the same path.
When I was in elementary school, in the early 60s, were taught about the perils of overpopulation. This was elementary school in Newton, Mass - a hotbed of liberalism. Anyway, when explained the situation, even my 5th grade little brain recognized the problem, and as a kid I assumed the adults would deal with it now that we knew about it. The world's population then was around 3 billion. We recently passed 7.7 billion, and the number goes up faster every day. I guess there are really no adults...
@@chrisczyzewski7927 I'm thinking that anyone who believes some government puppet is the tool. Government NEVER lies. It is getting colder on this planet and all the glaciers that were supposed to be gone...ARE STILL HERE AND SOME ARE GROWING. Duh.
This video is embarrassing. Composition of the air does not affect temperature, as the Gas Law & data say. They never talk about established science used in all the weather models, but somehow not in the climate models.
Nice piece. I don't harp on this point, but I should: temperature is interesting, but energy content is critical and should be what people focus on when discussing global warming, which is the net accumulation of energy from the sun into Earth's systems of water, ice, land and air. The energy content of air is tiny compared to the energy content of water at the same temperature. That means that the energy available for transfer to other things, such as methane clathrates, etc is far greater for water than for air. Thus, water can and will cause greater changes when compared to air at the same temperature.
Thank you for talking about this very important issue. To think that this isn’t considered in climate modeling, must be one of the most unscientific thing ever.
Arctic Methane is being considered in modeling - This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience and only helps CC Deniers. I notified the maker of the video. >> See my main comment to "Just (don't) Have a Think" for more details.
@@rg5445 Dear R.G. you clearly have no experience in science do you. I am a research scientist with an extensive publication history, and have reviewed articles submitted for publication for a number of journals before I retired. Save your childish nonsense non-responses for people ignorant enough to fall for them
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 Dear Nate I. What’s with the hostility? I’m not sure if you think being so sanctimonious makes you sound more credible somehow but from where I’m sitting you just sound like an arrogant asshole.
@@rg5445 lol, "hostility" ??? Oh, my. First you spout childish nonsense - that is not an insult, it is an accurate description of what you said. What you said is nonsense, and it is what would be expected to be heard from a child, or a person who is thinking at the level of a child: "using phrases like conspiracy, misinformation or debunking etc, is ideology and not science." Second, you do not even try to read the references I provide to help you understand why Natalia's works is suspect. So I let you know my science background so you can understand why you are wasting your time responding to me with your childish nonsense. And now your feelings are hurt. Maybe instead of taking things personal you should try to see how you were fooled in the first place by reading B.F. Thornton et. al rebuttal in Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384 - or read the brief summary I posted directly in response to the video telling "Just Have a Think" to reconsider leaving this video up and because it harms gullible people who don't know any better. It causes gullible people to make fools of themselves when they try to pretend they know what they are talking about when they very clearly do not.
In a nutshell, this is why for the past few years of paying some attention to this subject I really don't mind being called an alarmist. I AM ALARMED that so many people including scientists will very likely be caught unprepared for how rapid planet earth will become inhospitable to most life forms unable to adapt. It'll be like waking up from taking a nap high up in a tree dreaming that I'll just roll over in bed. That HOLY SHIT moment is coming.
@James Michael Campbell Think isle 3 @ the Toys-R-Us Store after the janitor shut off the lights. Unsupervised play with a box cutter in your little hand.
Yes...climate change is rapidy. ITs warming FASTER then the great Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. The arctic turned into a modern day Tropical swamp.
It won't come as a surprise - it's been known about for decades, just left out of policy decisions - Politicians didn't like the idea of a 10-15 degree temp rise within 100 years - unless there was immediate action to decarbon.
This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience - I notified the maker of the video. >> See my response to _David Leahy_ in these comments for more details.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 Shame that she's been proven correct by last years field studies - do a search on here, due to covid lots are avail by the scientists doing the work. Or do a papers search and you'll find even more.
if this threat is immediate and real, it is completely unnecessary to further investigate. By the time we gather enough information there will be no one to read it...
Right. What good is writing a history book if there's no one around anymore to read it ? We silly large brained primates (collectively) are not above going extinct ourselves. I except the label ALARMIST. Y'all should be alarmed !!
@@JosephNordenbrockartistraction it's true that we humans are a bunch of cruel idiots, with big brains that allow us to do a lot of harm. But under the proper circumstances we do learn something of value. There is hope. We did not choose to exist, but we do. And we did not choose to be aware of the human folly either, but we are. We have no other option but to believe we can make it and do our best until the end. Every other option would be as cruel and stupid as denialism.
Some of us have been compiling the evidence for decades - we already packed, relocated, stocked up and have been preparing - mentally and emotionally - since before most of you were born.
He needs to be on Netflix, Amazon Prime and the other mainstream platforms. There are a thousand presenters of this information but few that do it so clearly.
I really do enjoy watching your channel. It’s one of a very few that I’ve hit the subscribe button for. And I do apologize for piggy backing into it with links to my blog postings on the subject of global warming. It’s such an intensely important topic that I really thank you for a job well done!
Please go back and correct your blog. This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience - I notified the maker of the video. >> See my response to David Leahy in these comments for more details.
Thank you for this communication. Shakhova's team has done a brilliant job! Science is and has always been about this - telling us what we need to know about nature.
As always, concise, easy to understand information which is greatly appreciated. As a 70yo, one becomes somewhat more philosophical about death, which nevertheless doesn't diminish my concern for the future of those much younger than myself, my own family included of course. My true particular interest in this subject therefore is 'timing'. Given the enormous complexity of all that is involved in the unfolding climate change and its impact on all life on the planet, my understanding suggests our species will begin to experience very serious consequences (food availability in particular) in less than 20 years! How do you see it? I understand if you do not wish to comment on this question.
Wonderful as always. You are performing a major work of education for mankind. You draw attention to the way in which Natalia and her work were ignored, pilloried and ridiculed for no good reason other than that she was a woman and a Russian, and that the "methane establishmnet" didnt contain anyone who knew anything about he Arctic, so they thought that if they ignored it, it wuld go away leaving gthem to build gtheir careers in warmer places. It is sad to report that this very week (Oct 2021) there is a set of meetings at the Royal Society run by those very same establishment types who scorned Shakhova, Best, Peter Wadhams
Well presented, informative & somewhat alarming. One minor point is your reference to a feedback loop. You should make it clear that this is a positive feedback loop which will cause acceleration of the methane release and hence acceleration of global temperature rise. Not everyone understands the difference between pos and neg feedback.
Awesome info to the cause of our up and coming demise. Excellent work in making the difficult understandable. If only we could refreeze the ICE. THANK YOU.
@@robertday8619 deny as we may, watching all sea life suffer from starvation and now trying to survive in the filth we have dumped into their environment. Many different biospheres have been decimated and will never recover due to insect and herbicide uncontrolled usage. Cancers in man have not only intensified in varieties, but now we all question what we eat. Oh yes, the earth is changing ask Fukushima or Chernobyl. Let me give you some more news as the temperatures increase it will become harder to breathe, imagine those temperatures 24/7 all occurring within the next ten years for days on end. I hope you live the suffering, and think of me and this time. Remember man can not refreeze the ice.
yawn. The climate change alarmists have been saying "about 10 years" since the 1960s. They've never got any predictions right, ever. They said the Maldives would be completely submerged by now, yet there's no noticeable difference yet. wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/ Are you guys even taking into account the 2050 solar minimum that threatens to freeze the earth? Let me guess - like ever global-warming-alarmist, you have no idea what the 2050 solar minimum even is.
Michael H I ponder 🤔, Why are so many distracted? Some even are rude about a connection between the ones that can see, hear and understand. I look out my window, have lived long enough to know there is a big change coming. Funny word exponential, means a accelerating set of events. Problem is no one can give any detail on just how fast this is going to happen. It is not just the hydrates but the biological production of methane. Better than 99 percent of life will become extinct. Only those creatures at both poles will survive.
@@rf-bh3fh Some microscopic single celled life forms can live in Zero Oxygen near ocean volcanic vents. I doubt anything large for a million years will evolve. It's even possible in my opinion that the water on this planet could escape to outer space and this blue planet will never be blue again. The rate of change will be very very fast on a geological time scale. We've burned allot of fossil fuel in a big hurry and the methane up north therefore will come up incredibly fast. WE greedy primates BROKE the living planet. It's sad to think about it.
This is another perfect example how, the discussion around what to do about avoiding a possible climate catastrophe focuses on small individual changes in our behaviour instead of how society has been organized and structured. No matter how much anyone of us recycles, switches to better light bulbs, maybe turning down the a/c a little or buying an electric car it won’t make a bit of difference overall in regards to this issue and to what could be the final blow to the climate. So therefore, we’ll not include it in any predictions and pretend it’s not happening, is almost criminal from the scientific community.
Many thanks for the clear explanation. It's a dire situation and just one motivation of many for us to engage in urgent geoengineering specifically to restore Arctic sea ice. We also need urgently to reduce green house gas emissions rapidly to zero and to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As I said, it's dire and urgent. A clear emergency.
What could possibly go wrong with geoengineering?! lol. You want to allow a bunch of wonks to experiment on what is left of our atmosphere and biodiversity with their chemistry set, to see if they can fix what their predecessors broke?
Rich Lancaster Well what do you suggest instead? We don’t have any choice at this point. It’s either that or give up. If we have the technology to go to the moon and make computers then surely we might have a shot at managing this if we put EVERYTHING into it. Of course there are risk but it improves our changes because the alternative results in utter collapse of civilisation and near human extinction.
Thank you so much for this super important informational video! I remember shakovas earlier statement reg methane threat. Since then there has been hardly any mentioning on this subject, not even from her or her team as far as i know. Guy Mcphearson has thankfully kept us informed about this horrible fact of threat! Once again, Thanks. David. Sweden.
I covered the finalization of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC's Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere (SROCC) in September 2019 and methane release due to permafrost thaw was finally mentioned: "There is medium evidence with low agreement whether northern permafrost regions are currently releasing additional net methane and CO2 due to thaw." Still a very conservative statement, but fact that it was in SROCC means the IPCC will address it in some fashion in their 6th Assessment Report currently in process.
So we have: -idiots telling us everything is fine. -scientists in labs telling us it's happening and it's bad. We need to go something. -scientist in the field telling us the lab scientist don't have a clue, it's more than bad it's catastrophic -the rest of us thinking "fuck! What the fucking fuck!?"
It's just as well that people aren't able to grasp how scary Natalia Shakhova's research actually is. We are not ready so not ready for what's coming. Boy I really hope Beckwith Guy McPherson and many many others are wrong.
Fortunately for us, Guy McPherson's a charlatan and an imbecile, and Paul Beckwith is jaw-droppingly mediocre though he tries sometimes. So pheeeew, looks like you did dodge a bullet.
One more reason to move on, do something about climate change. We need to be more knowledgeable on the subject (thanks for this very nice opportunity), speak with people, convince them it's serious, take the streets, put pressure on politicians, but try not to make it a partisan issue. OK not to vote for deniers, that's obviously the most important thing to do, but let people with a different world view keep it and yet acknowledge that climate change is an issue. All of this is not enough. We need to invest money and possibly time and commitment in small projects that have a chance to scale up and reduce our carbon footprint (sustainable farming, breeding, transportation, energy production and storage ... ). And we need to encourage our kids to do all of these things. We can still make it. I would even suggest that everybody who understands how serious this is, refrain from having children, and instead put all the energy in making the future safer for those who already exist.
@Penny4Bernie 2020, Trump's presidency is the worst calamity ever, but we need to get things done even if he remains in office. The economical unbalanced power of fossil fuel industry will come to an end. We need to speed up the process. Then they will not be able anymore to change public perception of conservatives at will. At that point we need to increase the sane to insane ratio of Republicans, it has to go from 0.00001 to 0.51. Dalogue will be necessary for that to happen. At that point, the worst case scenario will not be a return to the dark ages anymore. Come on, we can do it 😊
@@alexjackson1863, that is not going to be the case. Unfortunately for the rest of the sentient beings, we will keep on with our stinky existence somehow, it will just be a lot worse than now if we don't act promptly (for instance because instead of acting we say that there is no point) . But we can do a lot to avoid the worst case scenario.
@Penny4Bernie 2020, that's true. Even though China wants to sell the image of a concerned country, which, hypocritical as it certainly is, created some opportunities for the renewable sector to grow. But sooner or later China Russia and everybody else will realize that climate change makes life worse. We need to make it happen before the dark ages come back. It's not an issue that can be d solved in a comment section. We need organizations that think about this stuff and discuss it and study to prepare a wise strategy.
Not mentioned is the effect of methane released in ocean water, it will further increase the temperature of the water, hence solidify the feedback loop.
Sunshine on the oceans causes the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the man-made global warming theory is mostly scam. It is just arrogant to believe humans control earth temperature, the climate has always varied between warm and cold spells. Pollution is the big issue of our time so renewable power generation has it's place but we need to change our outlook on how we use plastics and how we dispose of our waste.
Yuri, the IPCC included solar activity and cloud formation effects even in their most basic radiative forcing calculations. For example here : www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-17.jpg Solar irradiance changes are minor, and cloud formation effects created mostly a cooling effect due to aerosol seeding.
If we don´t do something BIG very soon, we´re f.cked. It´s a long known truth - even in 2008 when I started studying ecology at the university I´ve known it. Yet to this day I see mankind only bickering about politics and other unimportant BS and doing virtually nothing to reverse these trends :( What other signs we need to change our ways? :(
To bad so many are so distracted by the daily stuff. Most are more interested in a dancing dog or a idiot in the White House. Thank you for this vid but we all are not going to change the coming events.
Very true. Cities across the world will become uninhabitable, MASSIVE climate change refuges is under way. It will be a global crisis and I can see wars breaking out.
Brilliant video Dave. You always manage to pack so much info into a short period of time and make it understandable. Your explanation of how the hydrates were formed along with the diagram is excellent. Also, you always seem to find a movie clip I've not seen before. I really hope the West reads and listens to what Shakhova and her team say, as I seem to recall she has been ignored by the West in the past. I keep an eye on the methane levels, hoping that the methane balloon, so to speak, doesn't go up. If it does, well, I think you are aware of the rate of heating that would cause. I expect you will start to get invitations, if you have not done so already, to speak about the climate crisis/emergency at various events and functions soon :-)
HI David. Thanks, as always, for your kind comments. I'm very happy to say publicly that it was actually your email to me (and the post by Seemorerocks) that inspired me to make this video - so thank you for that. All the best. Dave
We need some aspiring chemistry Nobel laureate to devise a low energy/passive way to utilize the sun's radiation to break down by photolysis unwanted & harmful surface level ozone and in so doing increase the atmospheric hydroxyl radicals which in turn break down atmospheric methane. You saw it here first!
I hate these non-scientist vloggers, their videos are useless, they mention everything except which day precisely our world ends. ;) Great video, informative, well documented and summarized as usual
I know, right? They keep saying that in a billion years, the sun will go Red Giant and swallow the earth in a fiery inferno. I bet you anything jack shit will happen, just like every other doom and gloom "prophecy!"
great series, i love watching your video's. in northern italy we are about to experience the hotter heat wave since a century or so with temperatures as high as 40-43 degress celsius. it can be very hot in the summer, depending on heatwaves, years, ecc. but this year it looks we are going to see some unprecedented stuff. i wish i could do more to stop this madness. unfortunately nor I,. nor anyone else can. it is not by recycling that we will save our world. we would need to cut our consumption. less smartphones, less cars, less food, less clothes, less garbage, less everything... are we really interested? by the way, we are living in a solar minimum right now, in 10-15 years we will be in a solar maximum. will be interesting to see what will happen to global weather once global temperatures will be already in a high thanks to global emissione, feedback loops, and we will add also the extra irradiation from the sun.
Richard look at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. The last time the planet reached 6 degrees above baseline. I suspect all life on earth perished and most parts of the planet, except at the poles became a tropical swamp. Scientist did discover Tropical fossil's buried deep in the ground.
JustHaveAThink...you are exactly correct. Nobody knows how big and what the trigger will be or when. However, it is a Positive Feedback Loop that cannot be put back in the bottle. Once it is triggered it could be the end of large animal existence, and death to sea life. It took Billions of years of struggle, courage and pain to get us to this point in our evolution. To jeopardize it all, is unimaginably stupid.
This is brilliant. Thank you so much. It reinforces the concept that we are heading for near term extinction unless we are able to wake up, radically reduce our carbon emissions, capture and store existing atmospheric carbon; and radically change how we are, how we live our lives, and how we relate with each other and with the planet.Phew! Thanks again, and thanks to Nataila Shakhova and her team. :)
@@geoff8982 See Healthy Climate Alliance and the multiple options healthyclimatealliance.org/ See also Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) www.climateworks.org/carbon-dioxide-removal/
Recent research of thawing from the previous ice age shows no sign of any massive release of methane from the Arctic. There was significant release from the tropics as the temperatures increased. But, it was relatively normal considering the increase in vegetation..
I've read that one of the large Russian petroleum companies Rosnef or maybe Lukoil was looking into ways to harvest that methane. It would be better to burn it than to release it as methane into the atmosphere. I'm not advocating doing that. I think those hydrates are far too unstable and too close to the surface.
@@philmoore9829 Japan is presently working on harvesting methane clathrates but haven't heard anything in over a year. That tells me they're having very little success.
I listened to a fellow presenting his PhD thesis on that in a talk a few years ago. All I recall is that methane trapped between rock strata that are tilted reaches the sea bed when the rock strata do (think of Grand Canyon with the rock lines tilted so they surface somewhere) so there's a long line of gas bubbles along the rock strata separation.
link to Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov (in russian) - news.esp.tomsk.gov.ru/entries/novost-shampanskoe-v-arktike-uchenye-tpu-o-poteplenii-i-vechnoy-merzlote
@@rf-bh3fh Hi, yes I've thought this myself until I saw a lecture on the probable effects.Apparently we will have much colder winters and much warmer summers. With more extremes being the norm. But i hope you're right!
You posted this excellent video 4 hours ago, and you already got six dislikes. Peculiar. As if some dislike robot automatically dislike climate change you-tubers.
Wayne Hooper yes indeed natural environment evolved to create and sustain humanity and might evolve organic intelligence to understand and adopt as well. Natural phenomena is exquisitely balanced and there is no reason for it to be any different in the coming years.
Hey, that's a great excuse for not even raising a finger to reduce pollution Wayne. We'll just blame the generation prior to us, in the exact same way they blamed the generation prior to them (with "We didn't start the fire.") The next generation can blame us, and humans can keep repeating that forever. Good idea.
@@robotnoir5299 Instead of doing what? To do anything don't any and every generation need an "knowledge/know how" to eliminate pollution? For every design perhaps shouldn't there be an end-of-life plan and a reverse logistics to restore to the original state?
The good times are nearly over. The first stage will we us watching the deaths of hundreds of millions in the developing world. The second stage will be poorer people beginning to starve in Europe and US - they will need to be gathered into feeding centres. The third stage will be the sealing of the cities to prevent urban raiding of farmland The fourth stage will be a collapse in the agricultural support systems - fertiliser, fuel for tractors, seed supplies etc. The final stage will be - well, let’s just say not very pleasant.
Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955): "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace." Clear and concise without any emotional weeping or hysteria. Although the omission of methane from IPCC calculations suggests some kind of malign influence on scientific opinions. Really this is a prime chance to employ the 'precautionary principle' that would champion low carbon sources of energy. If we had focussed our efforts on renewable energy earlier, instead of farcical military budgets, the price of energy wouldn't be gouging the life out of western economies. Joseph Schumpeter: “Created by the wars that required it, The Machine now creates the wars it requires.” Joseph Schumpeter: “Politicians are like bad horsemen who are so preoccupied with staying in the saddle that they can’t bother about where they’re going.” Georges Clemenceau (1841 - 1929): "War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
really inspiring...the knowledge about permafrost helps people like me studying the various dimensions of viruses too....expect more of such presentations...
Thanks Mister Think, very interesting. I don't recall a fault line or fracture zone through the ESAS but I'll need to re-check my Miss Teen South Carolina Global Atlas. If I can possibly find time eventually I'll read that paper not so much because it might extinct all Life but more because it's FREE.
I've done the calculations for warming of the top 20 m depth of the Arctic Ocean with no Arctic Ocean sea ice. Presently the lower latitudes send an annual average of 122 w/m**2 to the Arctic Ocean. The top 20 m depth of the Arctic Ocean will have an average annual temperature of: +2.8 degrees if the present 122 w/m**2 is still sent to the Arctic Ocean in warm air from the lower latitudes, or +0.3 degrees if the present 122 w/m**2 in warm air from the lower latitudes is reduced to 90 w/m**2 after the Arctic Ocean has no sea ice and more of its "own warming". Therefore, it's going to be somewhere in that range of +0.3 to +2.8 degrees depending on where in the range of 90 to 122 w/m**2 is the heat sent in warm air from the lower latitudes to the Arctic Ocean. It cannot be
Really good detail in this video, Dave. With the usual calm and professional presentation. Also, like yourself, I've found it frustrating as to why the Arctic trapped methane [what the USA would deem Free Freedom Gas, no doubt] has been totally left out of climate models. I have only been able to conclude, so far, is that the release of methane from the permafrost layers is relatively less quantifiable, so far, and subject to many variables, so in order to not be deemed pseudo-science, the IPCC have preferred to leave this slow acting time-bomb out of the equation. Of course, such is the nature of HICC that the processes involved are invariably well underway before we commit to doing anything to attenuate them. This one isn't yet and therefore the measurable data is lacking in comparison. It seems that unless the Grim Reaper is staring everyone in the face, governments would prefer to do what they've always done. That is to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and sing la-la-la.
"as to why the Arctic trapped methane....has been totally left out of climate models". It's because they have almost zero science to know what to put in. Contrary to the propaganda of the coal/oil shills the climate models actually do incorporate the physics as best known, and don't simply decide what warming they like and "tune it", so if they have worthless physics for an item they simply have no way of including it. The fault is not with the climate modellers. The fault is entirely with the humans who have steadfastly decided not to fund sufficient data to develop the science as in "...and we'll cut taxes by 3% when we get into office". This isn't rocket science.
Hi Andy. I completely agree. My cynical side says that the methane question is one where the fossil fuel boys have managed to really dig their heels in and send their smartest scientists and lawyers to block the IPCC's efforts.
@@JustHaveaThink Indeed. And I find it absolutely ridiculous. The FFIs are only delaying the obvious. It's time to start removing that $6.7TN global GDP annual subsidy. Then they might start to properly diversify into clean renewables and new power technologies.
i Tech "Another problem My main complaint on this latest report is that it does not explain the GWP vs. gas concentration, and the spectral implications of green house gases. In very low concentrations, photons leaving the earth typically miss the GHG molecules. Doubling the GHG concentration doubles the number of photons scattered. The relationship is linear. As the concentration increases, photons get to where there is a 100% probability that they hit a GHG molecule, with the resultant photon going up or down 50% of the time. ________ At very high concentrations, all the photons are intercepted by GHG molecules. Seen from space (which is all that matters), only the GHG molecules near the top of the atmosphere radiate to space. .. But it is cold up there, and that determines how much of the GHG radiation leaves the earth. At these high concentrations, the relationship of concentration to warming is logarithmic. That is why they say for CO2 the warming depends on the doubling of the concentration. 1,2,4,8,16.. each interval requires double the prior concentration to produce the same heating". ________ ________ Thanks. There's a misunderstanding of the physics in your comment but it doesn't alter any conclusions. "doubles the number of photons scattered". The photon isn't scattered, it's either absorbed or not absorbed (just passing through) with the photon frequency relative to absorption frequency band and the location within the molecule being passed through being what determines absorption or not. So, CO2 for example has a broad "sweet spot" at photon frequency 15.00 microns with smaller "sweet spots" at photon frequencies above and below that, thus having best absorption at photon frequency 15.00 microns because the odds of going through the "sweet spot" are increased. --------------------- The conversion of transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER 1 photon quantity) to molecular vibrational energy usually results in that molecular vibrational energy being converted to molecular translational energy (aka "molecular kinetic energy" aka "heat") rather than a photon being released because the collision rate in the atmosphere is of the order of billions per second for any gas molecule (I can't remember whether it's 1,000,000,000 collisions /second or 5,000,000,000 collisions /second but it's a lot. Usually it collides before a photon is spontaneously released. This means that the long-wave radiation (LWR) TER is mostly caused by collision of gas molecules which then can have some energy converted from molecular translational energy to molecular vibrational energy in one or both of the colliding molecules if one or both of the colliding molecules has >2 atomic nucleii in it (is a GHG) then that molecule that got molecular vibrational energy might spontaneously release a photon of TER, losing its vibration. So a volume of gas warmer than 0K will be emitting LWR (or longer wavelength TER) even if no LWR is being radiated into it, the molecular collisions causing that. In essence the energy is transmutable both ways: TER photon --> molecular vibrational --> molecular translational molecular translational --> molecular vibrational --> TER photon, and also the partial you mentioned TER photon --> molecular vibrational --> TER photon, and also molecular translational --> molecular vibrational --> molecular translational It just can't go directly TER photon --> molecular translational or molecular translational --> TER photon, it needs to go via the molecular vibrational state of a triatomic+ GHG molecule. In this sense the cartoon used by climate scientists is highly inaccurate but of course that doesn't matter because it shows the basic concept.
I really wish we could just cease using any references to 2100. There may be alot of data sets already done for that year but it seems to also make people tend to lessen their emergency sense and relax a bit at a time when just the opposite needs to but isnt happening. We are just dead honestly, my family knows it but kinda brushes under the table, cant make every meal indigestable after all. 2100... i wonder what will the wolrld will actually look like then...que the welcome to the new world neo part of tha matrix movie. And it could be much much worse than that scene. It could be virtually unrecognizable??? Excellent production though btw, i enjoyed it.
You are right. That 2100 frontier is a way to keep the climate change issue from bringing people down. Mainstream media know how to minimize the horrendous truth.
This is one of the great unknowns about global warming that has the potential to really be a "GAME OVER" changer. It could cause a tipping point which is a very good case for observing the "precautionary principal" with respect to CO2 emissions reduction.
Cheer up, Dave. You know what they say. Some things in life are bad, They can really make you mad. Other things just make you swear and curse. When you're chewing on life's gristle, Don't grumble, give a whistle! And this'll help things turn out for the best... And always look on the bright side of life!
Any chance we could trap and store this methane before it gets releas ed? I remember as a kid shoving a stick into a run-off stream by a field and capturing the methane in a jar. Bringing it to school science lab the next day and having the teacher lighting it for everybody.
@@MiniLuv-1984 Our pollution matches the drivers for a Venusian atmosphere. Both fossil fuels and chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, that catalyses CO2 to stay in the atmosphere. How Studying Venus Saved Earth th-cam.com/video/5QN1Lcojg9c/w-d-xo.html EDIT: fixed spacing
Hi Guy. Are you balancing the Audio by taking off some of the Hi End. You know, old people lose their hearing, and the first thing to go is the high end. It makes you sound kind of mushy and it is difficult to distinguish between vowel sounds. So, anyway, take a look at what your Audio Filtering looks like, and if you are clipping the High End, well, turn the knob. Thanks.
Good info, great presentation, but BAD news.........not sure if it's OK to plug a FB page, but check out Climate Change Preppers group. I'm a member, not a moderator. we see what's coming, but don't give up hope. lots of great info.
i don't use face book but i'm interested to know, what sort of preparations can you make for a global climate disaster? Stocking up on tinned food, moving to higher ground, building an ark, shooting your fellow humans in the race to own dwindling resources? Whatever you lot have in mind you are p***ing into the wind. Can you really prep for life on a planet that is about to become a globally hostile environment. Unless of course you are simply planning to leave (like the dolphins).
@@fuccasound3897 I just want to avoid the ugliness as long as possible. I would rather spend my last years in relative peace, close to nature, not stressing out in the rat race. It's not like the world will stop turning in year XXXX. Those who are prepared will have more control over their own lives, even as the world falls apart. Perhaps you should join one of those NTE groups if you think all hope is lost, but that seems kind of oxymoronic.
@@brucewilliams2106 That's why, thirty years ago (having done a degree in environmental science) i moved into one of four small cottages, with fields on one side, a wood on the other, and a lake beyond the wood, i can see the sun rise and set because the view to the horizon is across open country. my work is as a gardener, i don't watch TV, i my possessions are few. i share my space with a cat. i watch the hares in the fields, the buzzards in the sky. So been there done that, but it doesn't change the fact, that the planet is crashing and burning. So lead the best life you can while it lasts, be prepared to bend like wheat in a field on a windy day, the idea of 'control' is one of the reasons, i think we have made such a mess of this planet.
Good video, you're a good speaker. It is beyond comprehension that tens of millions of Americans utterly dismiss all of this because Al Gore said it was happening. Also appalling are the Americans who deny this simply because they lack the education required to understand the science. I know people who will say this is ALL "just your opinion". It's truly sickening.
In 2017 a huge poll showed even most Republicans in the US believe that human caused warming is real and is also a serious issue, but only like 30% of ALL Americans polled then thought it wouldn't be a serious issue in their lifetime. I think that has probably changed in the last two years with the record forest fires last year in California and Oregon and 2 mega storms in the Midwest this year, which have wiped out the same farmers crops twice in period of a month or so.....Now in polls it;s the number one issue of concern for dmocrts and democrat leaning voters (which is like 60% of the population ) Also, importantly , most if us have only been told what the IPCC has said !! :-( I myself, therefore, had no idea all the factors involved and the tipping pints we've beyond until a few months ago. I think it's very shocking and heart -breaking (and anxiety triggering ) for most people when they learn the truth, it was for me, but I am having some success in just the last few days talking to people about this on social media in groups that are not even climate related not that politically progressive generally. I am trying to drive the pint home that here in the US we can and MUST reach zero emissions by 20130 NOT 2050 (and must elect a President, as well as as many people at all levels of government with that sincere goal The science has been challenging for me (I honestly previously had had a kind of science phobia and have pretty much no science education but once I started to hear about these things I personally wanted to learn more and more and ask questions /compare opinions of scientists/ examine who they are and how much they really know and/or will be truthful about etc )
Dana----Good for you for trying to understand this. A basic knowledge of chemistry would help, as all of this is within the realm of that part of science. We will not reach the 2030 goal. it is not possible for several reasons. First, we have an infantile president who claims anthropogenic climate change is nonsense, supported by millions of fanatical people who will follow him no matter what any science says. In addition, their idiotic hatred of the Clintons and Al Gore keep them from ever accepting any of the science which Gore presented in his movie...all of which was true, none of which was beyond 6th grade science, which is where most Americans are functioning. Second, I believe very few people actually grasp the enormity of fossil fuels in the continued existence of mankind. A population of 7 billion could NEVER have been reached without the use of petroleum, and taking that out of the food production process is currently unthinkable on any level. Agriculture currently produces 25 % of GHGs, human related. How will we get that number to zero when the actual turning of the soil makes a carbon signature? Third, ...well, sure I would love to see this electrified world, no more Diesel and gasoline engines. Unfortunately almost NONE of the requisite infrastructure exists, not the solar farms, not the wind generation, not the charging stations, not the power lines. These things all exist, true, but we only have enough to provide a couple of percent of our needs. It will be decades before that infrastructure is capable of replacing fossil fuels. Forth, is that there is so much talk of "ending Big Oil" ...that day is never coming. Oil is too valuable to be burned, it's true, but as a chemical feed stock, it is utterly, absolutely irreplaceable. Last (in this post)....The multiple feed-back mechanisms at work in our climate cannot be reversed for the most part. The permafrost-methane/CO2-warming-thawing cycle cannot ever be reversed because once it has thawed, it would take decades of extremely cold weather to freeze it again. (See "heat of fusion of water"). This combined with the longetivity of CO2 in the atmosphere, the decreasing albedo in the arctic, and the world's in creasing demand for oil ensures that these processes will not regress. Adaptation to a hotter world is the only measure which we can undertake now.
The person who takes the time to climb up higher in the tree gets a wider view. Most people don't climb trees if you know what I mean. It's my opinion you don't own a fidget spinner and you are not ordinary. People with a decent education seem to want more. Have a good day.
The times are dire but doesn’t your suggestion allow the masses to remain complacent thereby allowing the problem to build and when budgets are reduced the temperature jump is amplified because CO2 kept building while this barrier was in place.
@@ArmwrestlingRevolt Yes. It could, and judging from homo sapiens' behavior would. I'm fully aware that energy conversion is what has allowed us to grow too large in population. But I don't want to die from starvation, and or heat exhaustion. But like my dad always said- people only act when there's a crisis. Well, not all of us.
@@ArmwrestlingRevolt We need to do BOTH - get rid of CO2 asap and work on geoengineering for global dimming (that technology in its pre-infancy at the moment )
Perhaps we should wait until global-warming-alarmists get JUST ONE prediction right. They've been wrong 100% of the time so far. Don't forget, the global-warming-alarmists claimed the Maldives would be completely submerged by now. wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/ LOL. Obviously, even though we're now AFTER the predicted deadline, there's still no difference at all. And businesses are so sure that nothing is going to happen soon that they just built another airport runway there in 2018. Why would they do that if the island was about to submerge? Global-warming-alarmists simply distract us from reducing pollution that actually matters.
If you think that greenhouse gases drive atmospheric temperature, water vapour by far exceeds methane in its absorption spectrum. It can only be considered significant when it oxidises into C02 and water vapour. Nevertheless, the existing greenhouse gases are already enough to absorb all the LW back radiation. Also the greenhouse warming model doesn't account for the significant effect of convection. The atmosphere is not a glass house.
The first million solar installations in the USA took something like 30 years. The second happened in the last 3 years. Let’s keep it up! Personally, I installed 10KW and leased two electric cars. The panels keep up with the house and both cars 10 months of the year! YOU CAN DO THIS TOO!
The quantum physics and bulk physics is: ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that isn't vibrating can be made to vibrate when it collides with another molecule (I don't know what %age of the collisions do this, I never studied quantum physics). When this happens the combined kinetic energy (sum of square of speeds) of the 2 colliding molecules decreases. The molecule will get one of its many vibrational modes that have various energies depending on the mode. This energy will precisely match the kinetic energy loss of the 2 colliding molecules because energy cannot be created or destroyed unless equivalent matter is destroyed or created (nuclear fusion/fission). I don't know whether the vibrational mode acquired (or none acquired) is dependent on the speeds of the 2 colliding molecules or the angle of collision or both so it might relate to the speed difference such as whether the greenhouse gas molecule is slower so it gets a kick but I'm just throwing out guesses because I never studied quantum physics. ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that is vibrating can lose its vibration when it collides with another molecule (I don't know what %age of the collisions do this). When this happens the combined kinetic energy (sum of square of speeds) of the 2 colliding molecules increases by a kinetic energy precisely matching that of the greenhouse gas molecule's vibrational mode that ceased. This is a greenhouse gas molecule's "Molecular Vibrational Energy" being converted to additional "Molecular Translational Energy" of one or both of the 2 colliding molecules. When 2 molecules collide the slower one speeds up and the faster one slows down. This is called "heat transfer" in bulk with many molecules involved. It's also called "entropy" or "The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics" (always homogenizing Universe, so 2 things colliding never causes the slower one to slow down and the faster one to speed up because that would be reducing entropy in a closed system and entropy cannot be reduced unless it's being increased somewhere else in the Universe by an equal or larger amount (So the Sun's relentless entropy increase can be used in theory to decrease the local entropy of Earth's sphere out to the stratosphere or some such by using the energy that Sun delivers into Earth's sphere on account of Sun's relentless entropy increase converting matter to energy. I think I've digressed but that's why the coal/oil shill meme that greenhouse gases can't warm Earth's surface because surface is already warmer than atmosphere above it and (they say) "defies the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics" is a load of tosh because Earth isn't a closed system because it's open to Sun and the Universe)). "Molecular Translational Energy" is also called "Molecular Kinetic Energy" and when the molecules are in vast quantity such as a cardboard box full of them it's also called by the more popular name "heat". ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that isn't vibrating will absorb a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation if the wavelength of the radiation happens to coincide with an aspect of the molecule's vibrational modes in that the photon's energy (which depends on its wavelength) precisely matches one of the vibrational energies of the molecule. When this happens the energy quantum has been changed in form from the Universe's basic energy transverse electromagnetic radiation to "Molecular Vibrational Energy". See the previous item for how this "Molecular Vibrational Energy" might get converted to "Molecular Translational Energy" (heat) if the molecule happens to collide before it spontaneously releases a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation. I recall reading that the Mean Free Path and speed are such that the chances of losing that energy by collision (changes to "heat") are orders of magnitude more likely than releasing a photon spontaneously before collision (1,000,000,000 or a few 1,000,000,000s of collisions / second, I forget exactly, research it). ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that is vibrating can spontaneously releases a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation and stop vibrating. The wavelength of the photon will precisely match the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" that the molecule had before it stopped vibrating. This means that if it spontaneously releases a photon from "Molecular Vibrational Energy" that it got from absorbing a photon then the wavelength of the photon released will precisely match the wavelength of the photon absorb. If it got the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" from a collision then the photon released will be at the wavelength (i.e. energy, wavelength determines energy) corresponding to the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" vibrational mode that it got on collision (see above for how I don't know what collision details determine that). Each greenhouse gas has a number of vibrational modes with a specific energy for each mode and more complex molecules have more vibrational modes so are more powerful greenhouse gases. Also though the power of a greenhouse gas will depend on what specific band of transverse electromagnetic radiation wavelengths it absorbs (which is determined by its vibrational modes) because the spectrum that the ocean surface sends up into the atmosphere peaks at 10 microns so for example, if CCl(3)Cl(2)F, CClF(2)CClF(2) and CH(2)BrCH(2)F should all absorb intensely in a band between 7.5 and 12 microns then this encompasses the 10-micron peak of the spectrum that the ocean surface sends up into the atmosphere so it would be a very powerful "greenhouse gas" and have great warming effect in very small quantities. I seem to recall from years ago (but I might be remembering wrong) that you can find vibrational modes of CO2 at www.barrettbellamyclimate.com which has a more comprehensive description of greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect than my comment here anyway. The vibrational modes of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere (it's absorption/emission spectrum) correspond to a series of wavelengths of transverse electromagnetic radiation in the following range: --------------- wave-l cyc power micron / cm w*cm/(m**2*cycle) 510-550 ~0.4 total in the low-frequency wing 18.18 550 0.015 17.86 560 0.025 17.54 570 0.067 17.30 578 0.148 17.24 580 0.148 16.95 590 0.150 Flat top 590-670 15.00 667 0.150 The centre, the peak. 14.93 670 0.150 14.71 680 0.149 14.49 690 0.148 14.29 700 0.147 14.08 710 0.145 13.89 720 0.144 13.70 730 0.142 13.51 740 0.141 13.51 750 0.139 13.33 760 0.128 13.16 770 0.052 12.82 780 0.033 12.66 790 0.010 790-830 ~0.90 total in the high-frequency wing That isn't a list of CO2 vibrational modes above. That's divided arbitrarily by me into 10 cyc / cm intervals. You can likely find at www.barrettbellamyclimate.com the CO2 vibrational modes that cause that overall power distribution above. The "power" values listed are specifically the amount of power that's being absorbed in Earth's atmosphere). --------------------------- The combination of 4 energy transformations above plus Earth's atmospheric lapse rate of 5-10 degrees of temperature decrease per km of altitude increase depending on humidity (average ~6.75 degrees / km) results in warming by the "greenhouse effect" because energy is being sent to space from greenhouse gas (GHG) molecules at a range of altitudes in the atmosphere instead of being sent to space entirely from the surface and the energy amount becomes less as the atmosphere becomes colder (becomes higher) because colder means slower gas molecules (see the 1st section above) so fewer collisions / second so less "Molecular Vibrational Energy" of the GHGs per second so less transverse electromagnetic radiation is being spontaneously released (fewer photons / second). So the more GHG molecules there are the higher/colder is the average place in the atmosphere from where they can make it up through the other GHG molecules above and get to space so there's more Sun's radiation energy getting absorbed than Earth's radiation energy being sent to space, so Earth's atmosphere, oceans & land must warm. The warming sends more radiation energy to space from GHG molecules in the atmosphere than it did before and when it finally matches Sun's radiation energy getting absorbed the warming stops. That's global warming when it's caused by increased GHGs. It's now 83% of Earth's radiation energy to space is from GHG molecules in the atmosphere and 17% is direct from Earth's surface because that 17% is in a band of wavelengths that aren't absorbed by H2O, CO2, CH4, O3 or N2O (called the "atmospheric window"). An increasing GHG can cause warming until there is so much of it in the atmosphere that all radiation energy in its absorption band of wavelengths is being sent to space only from its molecules at the very top of the troposphere in the tropopause where the atmospheric lapse rate of 5-10 degrees / km altitude no longer applies and temperature remains constant, then the GHG effect is "saturated" in its absorption band and no further warming can be caused for that particular band.
A thousand thanks for your demonstration of methane phenomena, I watched it twice and took an hour to go thru the links , which are mind blowing BTW. What I would like to see are current videos of the methane bubbles in the Siberian Sea, I have read there are kilometers wide patches of bubbles and thousands of patches. Is this true?
Hi James. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. I'm delighted the video was useful. If you're after more info on the extent of methane, there are videos on TH-cam that talk about this. In fact it's a big deal over in Canada where they are experiencing a similar phenomenon. Type in 'Canadian methane release' or something similar. Cheers. Dave
I've watched a previous video with Natalie Shakhovia a few years ago, concerning this topic. You presented the facts beautifully for us non-scientists. Great work.
Natalia Shakhova is incompetent. Her Geoscience paper this video is based on has been shown to be filled with errors in math, false claims about he work other scientists and her conclusions are "absurd" - quote from the rebuttal of this nonsense in Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384 by Brett F. Thornton, one of the actual scientists she slandered.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 No doubt that there are scientific research disputes when it comes to predictions, etc, but it is obvious that melting permafrost is another positive feedback to rising global temperatures.
@@davidleahy6141 I appreciate your response. I address your second point further below.
___You first point is important. This > Not a matter of "disputes" < - this is a matter of gross negligence on the part 1) Natalia's team, 2) the reviewers of her article for Geoscience, and 3) the Editors of Geoscience for not having competent reviewers in the first place for a "Special Issue" on the subject.
In fact Brett F. Thornton, takes to task all three in his rebuttal Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384. Just skim it and you will be disgusted at the 1) the number and nature of her errors and 2) the gross and misleading exaggerations in her conclusions, 3) that it was published at all, let alone in a "Special Issue."
Brett notes in his rebuttal that Natalia Shahkova et. al. in the Geosciences paper this video is based makes < "a number of false statements"> and he then corrects both her responses and misreading of her own data and her hysterical and inaccurate conclusions.
The problem with propagating Natalia's myths: 1) it slanders science, confusing people and damaging the credibility of competent researcher and their work, which Harms Real Efforts at combating CC.____ 2) it harms people psychologically causing depression and despondency._______ 3) some people end up wasting their lives by falling prey to well known con artists like cult leader Guy McPherson and a group called "Deep Adaptation," both of whom take advantage of the general public’s scientific illiteracy and prey on their emotional lability. ____Both Guy McPherson and "Deep Adaptation" are No Different than your run of the mill televangelist and worse, they are like Creationists "Dr". Henry Morris and "Dr" Duane Gish - scientists who use their credentials to lend an air of credibility but then deliberately misrepresent the science to keep their con going.
_________Guy and the Deep Adaptation people pervert science to their own ends while the televangelist/Creationists pervert religion to their own ends.
I have no problem if people want to use spiritual or religions means to cope with and and combat CC, but I have a Very Real Problem when they slander science to deliberately mislead people using emotion-driven, data-lacking dystopic points of view for recruitment purposes.
_____To your second point - yes there many positive feedbacks at work that we need to be concerned about and monitor. And in fact Arctic Methane is one of them. However we do climate science and ourselves a grave disservice by grossly misrepresenting these threats in two ways. First, CC Deniers use that Against Us to say scientists are lying. Second, regular people become disillusioned and confused when they learn they've been mislead and then they give up because they feel betrayed and, bc they cannot distinguish btwn competent and incompetent science.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 Brett Thorton was debunked by the recent Laptev Sea study. Source apportionment of methane escaping the subsea permafrost system in the outer Eurasian Arctic Shelf 2021
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Thank you very much for that reference! I have not been paying any attention to CC at all lately, there only so much time in this 3dt.exe goopverse of ours, and sooo much to do, learn and experience :).
Anyway, the results of that paper are obviously Not good news - specifically the thermogenic origin of the methane. Although tbh, I do not know "how bad" it really is, as in, how much of a clear and present danger it poses. I'd appreciate it if you let me know as more data and discussion becomes public. And again, thank you.
>__BUT___< Re. "debunked" = To be clear, Brett Thorton et. al. was Not claiming methane was Not being released - in fact his research says it is. He WAS saying there is insufficient data to make the claims made by Shakhova et. al. in the Geoscience paper that this particular video focuses on.
Furthermore, the paper you reference > Does Not Nullify < the very legitimate criticisms by Thorton et. al. of Shakhova et. al. group's Extremely Sloppy-borderline incompetent work, and their misreading of data of other scientists, and Libelous Claims made towards other scientists in the field in this paper. Read his rebuttal and you will see very clearly what I mean.
Again To Be Clear - Bret Thorton et. al. criticisms of the 1) sloppy work of and libelous made by Shakhova et. al., 2) reviewer's negligence prior to publication, and 3) Geoscience for publishing it without competent review and then not retracting it when made aware of the sloppy work, misreading of data, and libelous claims ALL STILL STAND. That is simply fact.
Sadly > IF < the individual who made this video: 1) actually understood the science, 2) had any integrity, and 3) CARED ABOUT ACTUALLY INFORMING HIS AUDIENCE, instead of MISINFORMING his audience, he could have done a competent job with this video.
For example, he did an Excellent Job of explaining the processes at work -Kudos!
BUT the individual who made this video Should have Issued a Very Clear Disclaimer when Geosciences published the Criticisms made by Thorton et. al.
Specifically, he should have issued a disclaimer in the start of the video, and immediately in print below the title of the video, that Made it Very Clear that the claims made by the paper were based on research of questionable value, and that the authors of the paper misread the data of other scientists, made false claims about the data and motivations of other scientists, and that the reviewers of the paper Fucked Up Very Badly, and that Geosciences is a Business as much If Not More than a clearinghouse disseminating scientifically accurate information.
Note - there is a LOT of controversy about retraction of articles of dubious quality bc of threats of lawsuits of authors of articles of dubious quality. So I can understand Geosciences reticence at retracting this paper. However, this paper is so bad, and the libel so obvious, any attempt by Shakhova et. al. to sue over retraction in a court of law would have been thrown out before it reached the court room.
IOW, it would have been a Very Small price for Geosciences to pay, in order to maintain the Credibility of their publication, and of The Fucking SCIENCE ITSELF.
So, anyway, keep up the good work and again, I'd appreciate it if you let me know when more info becomes available to us Mushrooms growing out here in the dark.
It was a press conference by Natalia Shakhova in 2012 I believe, that first got me interested in climate change. I remember having stumbled upon this by accident, she seemed extremely concerned about what was happening on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Having caught my interest I delved some more and noted she and her team were being widely pilloried by the scientific community and by some in the climate activism community. This was at a time when making statements about the more extreme and severe effects of climate change were being downplayed for a number of (not very good) reasons. In the intervening period her concerns have been validated as almost all the observations have confirmed that the effects are all at the most severe, worst case scenarios.
Nothing has actually been validated because methane (CH4) emissions continue at ~0.4 GtC / year which is a lot less than the 38 GtC in a huge burst over a few years that Mister Think claims Natalia Shakhova's latest paper indicates is very likely, or is somewhat likely, or is a little bit likely, or is a tiny bit likely, whatever the paper's conclusion actually is.
Peter J Craven very very scary
This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience - I notified the maker of the video.
>> See my response to __David Leahy__ in these comments for more details.
@@elephantintheroom5678 did he make a Methane ARctic PLAYLIST of his vids? It would save us from having to search for the vid.
When that 20 gigaton bomb goes off temps will rise 5 degrees C in a few days. Get ready for 135 degree days in some places.
Great and balanced video per usual. One small hitch- the initial potency of CH4 is approximately 120x during its first year, 115x after 5 years and ~105x after 10 years. The 80x applies more on a 20 year timescale. This is a very minor point though, as due to methane degradation the full forcing or maximum temperature growth from a "pulse" would likely not be reached.
Edit: I realized some people may want a source for this claim. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf It is from chapter 8 of the IPCC 5 assessment report. You can see the varying potency on figure 8.29. Some may think the IPCC is conservative, but this is mostly for the models used. The physical science is top-notch and extremely reliable.
I learned quite a bit from this video, please keep them coming!
How could we capture this CH4 cheaply for use during winter when the solar PV produces far less energy.
@@ArthursHD
Catch it before it gets released.
If you google Methyl hydrate extraction or similar phrases, you'll find lots of pdfs and articles on the very subject. This has been going on for years, with hundreds of millions of dollars of research going on. Since 2009 it has been law in the US that the energy agencies have to report to Congress annually on the progress of this research. The US Navy planning documents since 2014 for Artic strategy assume a melting of the ice by 2030 sufficient for drilling, mining, transport and tourism to take place regularly.
In other words, there are people and companies out there that want global warming to happen, so that they can extract the resources of the Artic and ultimately, the Antarctic.
In 2017 Japan trialled CH4 extraction from methyl hydrates off their shores.
In 2018, there was an attempt to lift the international ban on resource extraction in Antarctica. It failed at the UN, but no doubt the planet-eaters will be back.
Yes, these hydrates are not just in the Arctic, they are all over the ocean floor, and at some point they could all defrost. There are craters all over the place on the seabeds around the world where they have defrosted violently in previous warming eras.
In Australia . A public majority is now trying to convince our Govt. that more action is necessary....but it's not actually a real a Government anymore...it's more like an International franchise dealing in our resources sector .-with Faith Mining ,Media Landscaping and Sovereignty Extraction services, it's forte.
The Head Office is overseas somewhere..but we're not sure
like I said ..they just dont answer our calls !
A majority?? Yeah sorry wishful thinking, otherwise the streets would be blockaded. But that hasn't happened for years the last ongoing blockade was the 1990 tramways strike with 250 trams parked in Melbourne for a month.
To many fucking landlords and day traders these days - half my family think they're green whilst owning huge houses and traveling overseas yearly, all a bunch of money hungry arseholes, my fridge has 4 doors but it's soooo good for the environment.. Hypocritical wankers about sums up most Australians these days.
Hi Mat. Yeah, bad situation in Oz. So close at the last election too 🙄
@@JustHaveaThink I don't think a change of goverbent would have helped. Both major parties here are deeply entrenched in the annals of corporate businesses that their environmental policies are not that different and the alternative "green" party defines itself with internal squabbling and grubbing for power. More than ever before, Australia needs leadership with conviction and intelligence, and we have no candidates with such attributes. As for the population, it behaves as expected given the cultural environment devoid of any clear and rational thinking.
@@campbellbamble5138 I have to agree MM, although I think we could keep those 4 door fridges, SUV's and other energy burning monstrosities if we focused our attention on solar/wind energy and storage systems development. I did a back of the envelope calculation that showed we could collect all the energy we use in Oz (Coal, petrochemical and gas for both energy generation and transport) with a 14km x 14km solar array (distributed over all of Australia) with suitable energy storage to match.
@@MiniLuv-1984 We've been able to do it for a couple of decades first argument against it was cost - then base load then efficiency, all half truths that could be worked around.
As efficiency nor cost matter in relation to a livable planet plus we had an extended boom period and instead of building on it we (as a country) were stripped of assets. We once had sovereign wealth to rival Norway but we've allowed successive government to sell everything so the commons are pretty much a thing of the past.
It was 2013 or 2014 that I saw a movie "Arctic Death Spiral, the Methane Time Bomb" which caused my climate anxiety. That movie was a clinical study of Post-Traumatic Shock, actually ongoing traumatic shock. Nathalia is my hero, and I think that we have to listen to her. She was almost in tears along with almost every other climate scientist when they filmed those interviews. This was a great video you have done, I'll put the word out.
Lawrence Taylor Yep, same seeing that video.
Thanks Lawrence. I'm glad to hear the video was OK (although I wish the subject matter was more optimistic) - and I'm very grateful for your support. All the best. Dave
Is the movie this one:
Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb
th-cam.com/video/m6pFDu7lLV4/w-d-xo.html
It's amazing how many people who are oblivious about what is happening in the Arctic. Even when you try to inform them they just don't want to know and some even think that you are loopy. This does not look good for the world's future at all.
Remember when we thought we could avoid climate change by using energy saving bulbs? That was nice.
Internot, because of solar panels and LEDs, lighting is not a problem, if you have a light bill, you’re doing something wrong, Air conditioning,heating and transportation are things we need to improve on, Technology is getting better. pollution and wars are something we should put more concern on
I get your point. Big light bulb is big light bulb. We need the industry,not the consumer to change
Just wanted to add that military activity is the largest contributing factor to greenhouse gasses
Fossil fuel company propaganda has gotten a lot more sophisticated since then. Remember, ONLY you making different choices like car pooling and driving slower will stop climate change. There is no other options. Actually Exxon is helping by pumping billions of tons of carbon out of the ground. Because reasons!
Tulips from Holland?
I've been paying attention to Natalia Shakova since I heard Guy McPherson quote her data in 2015. She's the lead Scientist for the International Arctic Research Centre. I'm glad she's getting more attention. If you can't see that her research is so much more dire than anyone is willing to admit then I don't know what to say. It's so long been good to know ya time very soon..
Natalia Shahkova's is a hack. Her Geoscience paper that this video is based on was rebutted and shown to be Full of Errors, and False Claims about other scientist's work - see the rebuttal at Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384.
Worse, her group "publishes" hysterical claims in "The Guardian" - which were later debunked by numerous scientists at Climatefeedback and Scientistwarning.
Also, Guy McPherson is nothing but a cult figure - I remember him calling for the end of the world in 2012 back in the Peak Oil days in the mid-2000s. I'm amazed he is still fooling people. But then again, I'm amazed televangelists manage to stay in business too.
>> See my response to __David Leahy__ in these comments for more details.
You are a great presenter. I learned something new from this. I hadn't thought about the shelves under the sea containing so much organic material from previous terrestrial life. And much of these hydrates are in solid form presently in vast amounts on the ocean floor. A slight average warming of the sea releases these and everything that was locked up in the hydrate stable zone. In Canada, we are already seeing northern taiga tree die-offs as the underlying permafrost melts and presumably saturates the roots. It's overwhelming and sometimes my only hope is that the models are hyperbole. It would seem that they are very conservative. Things are changing. This is a silent, slow motion meteorite impact that we seem only able to study document and revise predictive models right up to the point where there is nothing we can do about it. I was learning about this in the late 70's and 80's, yet here we are. I suppose it would be easier to accept if it was a natural cycle that we had no control over. Hard to separate "belief" from "science" when no single person could possible comprehend the complexity of all these interacting cycles . However, my gut and limited science background tends to agree with the majority - we have a hand in doing it to ourselves. Hard to look at the next generation in the eye with that realization. Nothing- not even a growing economy is worth that price. It's such a shame that we don't inherit memory as a part of our genome. If we had the accumulated memories of millennia, I wonder if we would still walk the same path.
When I was in elementary school, in the early 60s, were taught about the perils of overpopulation. This was elementary school in Newton, Mass - a hotbed of liberalism. Anyway, when explained the situation, even my 5th grade little brain recognized the problem, and as a kid I assumed the adults would deal with it now that we knew about it. The world's population then was around 3 billion. We recently passed 7.7 billion, and the number goes up faster every day. I guess there are really no adults...
@@sscygni6817 Americans don't adult well. They like to stay stuck in their teens.
@@sscygni6817 Unfortunately it's the only purpose of Life. That's a Massively Inconvenient Truth.
M A hard to look the next generation in the eye... yes
the same path yes the greedy rich path
So long and thanks for all the fish.
🛸🐋🐬🐬🐳🐬🐋
Hey JHAT, thank you so much for Shakhova's latest paper. She is a very good researcher and does not deserve the critics that hapened to her.
Anyone who tries to push the global warming bullshit needs to be exterminated
Vern Evans, you're a tool. Do some serious reading from scientifically creditable resources and educate yourself.
@@chrisczyzewski7927 I'm thinking that anyone who believes some government puppet is the tool. Government NEVER lies. It is getting colder on this planet and all the glaciers that were supposed to be gone...ARE STILL HERE AND SOME ARE GROWING. Duh.
@@vernevens1598 Sure troll. It's getting colder. Except on a thermometer you dumbass.
This video is embarrassing. Composition of the air does not affect temperature, as the Gas Law & data say. They never talk about established science used in all the weather models, but somehow not in the climate models.
Many thanks for this, it’s just what most people need, good, honest, non-bullshit info. Thanks again, superbly
well presented .
Thanks Bugsy. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave
@@JustHaveaThink come on im still waiting for your reply!!!!!!
If/when the arctic farts, it's the beginning of the end for team human.
I sure hope there's no major earthquake around East Siberia before I'm done building my customized tree fort.
😁😁
Its 100ds of years of Methane storeed in permofrost that is now being released. The 6th mass extinction is underway
This video is based on lies - I notified the maker of the video. See my response to
David Leahy in these comments for more details.
Zeigfriedsays: "Zat is what I am trying to tell you!" This information has been available for decades, but almost no one has been listening.
Great presentation of the evidence. Clear and concise for everyone.
th-cam.com/video/_6LsoiyVTII/w-d-xo.html
Watch you may learn something.
Nice piece. I don't harp on this point, but I should: temperature is interesting, but energy content is critical and should be what people focus on when discussing global warming, which is the net accumulation of energy from the sun into Earth's systems of water, ice, land and air. The energy content of air is tiny compared to the energy content of water at the same temperature. That means that the energy available for transfer to other things, such as methane clathrates, etc is far greater for water than for air. Thus, water can and will cause greater changes when compared to air at the same temperature.
Thank you for talking about this very important issue. To think that this isn’t considered in climate modeling, must be one of the most unscientific thing ever.
Arctic Methane is being considered in modeling - This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience and only helps CC Deniers. I notified the maker of the video. >> See my main comment to "Just (don't) Have a Think" for more details.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642
Any science using phrases like conspiracy, misinformation or debunking etc, is ideology and not science.
@@rg5445 Dear R.G. you clearly have no experience in science do you. I am a research scientist with an extensive publication history, and have reviewed articles submitted for publication for a number of journals before I retired. Save your childish nonsense non-responses for people ignorant enough to fall for them
@@istantinoplebullconsta642
Dear Nate I.
What’s with the hostility? I’m not sure if you think being so sanctimonious makes you sound more credible somehow but from where I’m sitting
you just sound like an arrogant asshole.
@@rg5445 lol, "hostility" ??? Oh, my. First you spout childish nonsense - that is not an insult, it is an accurate description of what you said. What you said is nonsense, and it is what would be expected to be heard from a child, or a person who is thinking at the level of a child: "using phrases like conspiracy, misinformation or debunking etc, is ideology and not science."
Second, you do not even try to read the references I provide to help you understand why Natalia's works is suspect.
So I let you know my science background so you can understand why you are wasting your time responding to me with your childish nonsense. And now your feelings are hurt. Maybe instead of taking things personal you should try to see how you were fooled in the first place by reading B.F. Thornton et. al rebuttal in Geosciences 2019, 9(9), 384 - or read the brief summary I posted directly in response to the video telling "Just Have a Think" to reconsider leaving this video up and because it harms gullible people who don't know any better. It causes gullible people to make fools of themselves when they try to pretend they know what they are talking about when they very clearly do not.
In a nutshell, this is why for the past few years of paying some attention to this subject I really don't mind being called an alarmist. I AM ALARMED that so many people including scientists will very likely be caught unprepared for how rapid planet earth will become inhospitable to most life forms unable to adapt. It'll be like waking up from taking a nap high up in a tree dreaming that I'll just roll over in bed. That HOLY SHIT moment is coming.
@James Michael Campbell Think isle 3 @ the Toys-R-Us Store after the janitor shut off the lights. Unsupervised play with a box cutter in your little hand.
Yes...climate change is rapidy. ITs warming FASTER then the great Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. The arctic turned into a modern day Tropical swamp.
It won't come as a surprise - it's been known about for decades, just left out of policy decisions - Politicians didn't like the idea of a 10-15 degree temp rise within 100 years - unless there was immediate action to decarbon.
This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience - I notified the maker of the video.
>> See my response to _David Leahy_ in these comments for more details.
@@istantinoplebullconsta642 Shame that she's been proven correct by last years field studies - do a search on here, due to covid lots are avail by the scientists doing the work. Or do a papers search and you'll find even more.
if this threat is immediate and real, it is completely unnecessary to further investigate. By the time we gather enough information there will be no one to read it...
Collectively as humans, we have enough information already, but being knowledgeable helps a lot in making action more effective.
Right. What good is writing a history book if there's no one around anymore to read it ? We silly large brained primates (collectively) are not above going extinct ourselves. I except the label ALARMIST. Y'all should be alarmed !!
@@JosephNordenbrockartistraction it's true that we humans are a bunch of cruel idiots, with big brains that allow us to do a lot of harm. But under the proper circumstances we do learn something of value. There is hope. We did not choose to exist, but we do. And we did not choose to be aware of the human folly either, but we are. We have no other option but to believe we can make it and do our best until the end. Every other option would be as cruel and stupid as denialism.
Some of us have been compiling the evidence for decades - we already packed, relocated, stocked up and have been preparing - mentally and emotionally - since before most of you were born.
I doubt anyone cannot be affected by climate change.
Love these videos, even keel and full of references. Keep up the good educational work!
He needs to be on Netflix, Amazon Prime and the other mainstream platforms. There are a thousand presenters of this information but few that do it so clearly.
@@guy_denning I completely agree.
Thanks Michael. Much appreciated.
Cheers Guy. That's a very kind comment and much appreciated. All the best. Dave
Yes thank you
I really do enjoy watching your channel. It’s one of a very few that I’ve hit the subscribe button for. And I do apologize for piggy backing into it with links to my blog postings on the subject of global warming. It’s such an intensely important topic that I really thank you for a job well done!
Please go back and correct your blog. This video is based on Natalia Shakhova's Error-Ridden paper in Geoscience - I notified the maker of the video. >> See my response to David Leahy in these comments for more details.
Thank you for this communication. Shakhova's team has done a brilliant job! Science is and has always been about this - telling us what we need to know about nature.
Well made explanation - Thank you for compiling and sharing
Great job showing key aspects of the research. Especially the part about the methane hydrate stability zone.
As always, concise, easy to understand information which is greatly appreciated. As a 70yo, one becomes somewhat more philosophical about death, which nevertheless doesn't diminish my concern for the future of those much younger than myself, my own family included of course. My true particular interest in this subject therefore is 'timing'. Given the enormous complexity of all that is involved in the unfolding climate change and its impact on all life on the planet, my understanding suggests our species will begin to experience very serious consequences (food availability in particular) in less than 20 years! How do you see it? I understand if you do not wish to comment on this question.
Wonderful as always. You are performing a major work of education for mankind. You draw attention to the way in which Natalia and her work were ignored, pilloried and ridiculed for no good reason other than that she was a woman and a Russian, and that the "methane establishmnet" didnt contain anyone who knew anything about he Arctic, so they thought that if they ignored it, it wuld go away leaving gthem to build gtheir careers in warmer places. It is sad to report that this very week (Oct 2021) there is a set of meetings at the Royal Society run by those very same establishment types who scorned Shakhova, Best,
Peter Wadhams
Well presented, informative & somewhat alarming. One minor point is your reference to a feedback loop. You should make it clear that this is a positive feedback loop which will cause acceleration of the methane release and hence acceleration of global temperature rise. Not everyone understands the difference between pos and neg feedback.
Most folks think word "positive" exclusively means positive in general.
Complicated work presented well and facts easilty accessible. It's a shame humanity doesn't give a stuff, because it was really a lovely planet!
If such DOES happen, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to stop it.
Awesome info to the cause of our up and coming demise. Excellent work in making the difficult understandable. If only we could refreeze the ICE. THANK YOU.
UTTER NONSENSE
@@robertday8619 deny as we may, watching all sea life suffer from starvation and now trying to survive in the filth we have dumped into their environment. Many different biospheres have been decimated and will never recover due to insect and herbicide uncontrolled usage. Cancers in man have not only intensified in varieties, but now we all question what we eat. Oh yes, the earth is changing ask Fukushima or Chernobyl. Let me give you some more news as the temperatures increase it will become harder to breathe, imagine those temperatures 24/7 all occurring within the next ten years for days on end. I hope you live the suffering, and think of me and this time. Remember man can not refreeze the ice.
@@georgelindsey7370 AGAIN I UTTER NONSENSE
You need very high pressure like 60 bar to form hydrates from ice..
To bad so many are distracted. Our civilization is hooked on fossil fuel. No way to stop what is to come. About ten years till it hits the fan
yawn. The climate change alarmists have been saying "about 10 years" since the 1960s. They've never got any predictions right, ever.
They said the Maldives would be completely submerged by now, yet there's no noticeable difference yet. wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/
Are you guys even taking into account the 2050 solar minimum that threatens to freeze the earth? Let me guess - like ever global-warming-alarmist, you have no idea what the 2050 solar minimum even is.
Michael H I ponder 🤔, Why are so many distracted? Some even are rude about a connection between the ones that can see, hear and understand. I look out my window, have lived long enough to know there is a big change coming. Funny word exponential, means a accelerating set of events. Problem is no one can give any detail on just how fast this is going to happen. It is not just the hydrates but the biological production of methane. Better than 99 percent of life will become extinct. Only those creatures at both poles will survive.
@@rf-bh3fh Some microscopic single celled life forms can live in Zero Oxygen near ocean volcanic vents. I doubt anything large for a million years will evolve. It's even possible in my opinion that the water on this planet could escape to outer space and this blue planet will never be blue again. The rate of change will be very very fast on a geological time scale. We've burned allot of fossil fuel in a big hurry and the methane up north therefore will come up incredibly fast. WE greedy primates BROKE the living planet. It's sad to think about it.
This is another perfect example how, the discussion around what to do about avoiding a possible climate catastrophe focuses on small individual changes in our behaviour instead of how society has been organized and structured. No matter how much anyone of us recycles, switches to better light bulbs, maybe turning down the a/c a little or buying an electric car it won’t make a bit of difference overall in regards to this issue and to what could be the final blow to the climate. So therefore, we’ll not include it in any predictions and pretend it’s not happening, is almost criminal from the scientific community.
Many thanks for the clear explanation. It's a dire situation and just one motivation of many for us to engage in urgent geoengineering specifically to restore Arctic sea ice. We also need urgently to reduce green house gas emissions rapidly to zero and to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As I said, it's dire and urgent. A clear emergency.
I'm not aware of any actual existing geoengineering ,or even ideas/theories for restoring Arctic sea ice (?)
What could possibly go wrong with geoengineering?! lol. You want to allow a bunch of wonks to experiment on what is left of our atmosphere and biodiversity with their chemistry set, to see if they can fix what their predecessors broke?
Rich Lancaster Well what do you suggest instead? We don’t have any choice at this point. It’s either that or give up. If we have the technology to go to the moon and make computers then surely we might have a shot at managing this if we put EVERYTHING into it. Of course there are risk but it improves our changes because the alternative results in utter collapse of civilisation and near human extinction.
Thank you for your fastidious work in summarizing the highlights of this vitally important report in layman's terms.
An excellent report following up on Shakhova & company ‘s first one.
Thank you so much for this super important informational video! I remember shakovas earlier statement reg methane threat. Since then there has been hardly any mentioning on this subject, not even from her or her team as far as i know. Guy Mcphearson has thankfully kept us informed about this horrible fact of threat! Once again, Thanks. David. Sweden.
Great job, yet again! - Thanks.
I covered the finalization of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC's Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere (SROCC) in September 2019 and methane release due to permafrost thaw was finally mentioned: "There is medium evidence with low agreement whether northern
permafrost regions are currently releasing additional net methane and CO2 due to thaw." Still a very conservative statement, but fact that it was in SROCC means the IPCC will address it in some fashion in their 6th Assessment Report currently in process.
So we have:
-idiots telling us everything is fine.
-scientists in labs telling us it's happening and it's bad. We need to go something.
-scientist in the field telling us the lab scientist don't have a clue, it's more than bad it's catastrophic
-the rest of us thinking "fuck! What the fucking fuck!?"
It's just as well that people aren't able to grasp how scary Natalia Shakhova's research actually is. We are not ready so not ready for what's coming. Boy I really hope Beckwith Guy McPherson and many many others are wrong.
Fortunately for us, Guy McPherson's a charlatan and an imbecile, and Paul Beckwith is jaw-droppingly mediocre though he tries sometimes. So pheeeew, looks like you did dodge a bullet.
One more reason to move on, do something about climate change. We need to be more knowledgeable on the subject (thanks for this very nice opportunity), speak with people, convince them it's serious, take the streets, put pressure on politicians, but try not to make it a partisan issue. OK not to vote for deniers, that's obviously the most important thing to do, but let people with a different world view keep it and yet acknowledge that climate change is an issue. All of this is not enough. We need to invest money and possibly time and commitment in small projects that have a chance to scale up and reduce our carbon footprint (sustainable farming, breeding, transportation, energy production and storage ... ). And we need to encourage our kids to do all of these things. We can still make it. I would even suggest that everybody who understands how serious this is, refrain from having children, and instead put all the energy in making the future safer for those who already exist.
It's more than serious. It's ("civilization") over. We are zombies - living dead.
@Penny4Bernie 2020, Trump's presidency is the worst calamity ever, but we need to get things done even if he remains in office. The economical unbalanced power of fossil fuel industry will come to an end. We need to speed up the process. Then they will not be able anymore to change public perception of conservatives at will. At that point we need to increase the sane to insane ratio of Republicans, it has to go from 0.00001 to 0.51. Dalogue will be necessary for that to happen. At that point, the worst case scenario will not be a return to the dark ages anymore. Come on, we can do it 😊
@@alexjackson1863, that is not going to be the case. Unfortunately for the rest of the sentient beings, we will keep on with our stinky existence somehow, it will just be a lot worse than now if we don't act promptly (for instance because instead of acting we say that there is no point) . But we can do a lot to avoid the worst case scenario.
Giancarlo Pace Yes.
@Penny4Bernie 2020, that's true. Even though China wants to sell the image of a concerned country, which, hypocritical as it certainly is, created some opportunities for the renewable sector to grow. But sooner or later China Russia and everybody else will realize that climate change makes life worse. We need to make it happen before the dark ages come back. It's not an issue that can be d solved in a comment section. We need organizations that think about this stuff and discuss it and study to prepare a wise strategy.
For balance, you should present the views of Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.
Every time you say "a long period of time " I can't help but look at your HiFi...
Hehe. Yeah, that was purchased in about 1983 by my Dad. Simpler times back then!
Those bitches rock once you've waited 10 minutes for the valves to warm up.
Roy -funny as hell!
Roy yes same thought
Not mentioned is the effect of methane released in ocean water, it will further increase the temperature of the water, hence solidify the feedback loop.
The IPPC has left out MORE than only methane in their calculations. The influence of solar activity and cloud formation for example..
@@jitteryjet7525 Yes they did
Sunshine on the oceans causes the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere, the man-made global warming theory is mostly scam. It is just arrogant to believe humans control earth temperature, the climate has always varied between warm and cold spells. Pollution is the big issue of our time so renewable power generation has it's place but we need to change our outlook on how we use plastics and how we dispose of our waste.
@@bertieschitz-peas429 Almost. Rising temperatures push CO2 from the oceans into the air. It explains the Vostok ice core study results.
Yes, absolutely. It is a common misconception that humans can control the weather.
Yuri, the IPCC included solar activity and cloud formation effects even in their most basic radiative forcing calculations. For example here :
www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig8-17.jpg
Solar irradiance changes are minor, and cloud formation effects created mostly a cooling effect due to aerosol seeding.
If we don´t do something BIG very soon, we´re f.cked. It´s a long known truth - even in 2008 when I started studying ecology at the university I´ve known it. Yet to this day I see mankind only bickering about politics and other unimportant BS and doing virtually nothing to reverse these trends :( What other signs we need to change our ways? :(
Bureaucrats say global warming exists and can only be cured by bureaucrats taking over the world economy. What do you EXPECT them to say?
To bad so many are so distracted by the daily stuff. Most are more interested in a dancing dog or a idiot in the White House. Thank you for this vid but we all are not going to change the coming events.
Very true. Cities across the world will become uninhabitable, MASSIVE climate change refuges is under way. It will be a global crisis and I can see wars breaking out.
Yeah too bad we elected Biden
Brilliant video Dave. You always manage to pack so much info into a short period of time and make it understandable. Your explanation of how the hydrates were formed along with the diagram is excellent. Also, you always seem to find a movie clip I've not seen before. I really hope the West reads and listens to what Shakhova and her team say, as I seem to recall she has been ignored by the West in the past. I keep an eye on the methane levels, hoping that the methane balloon, so to speak, doesn't go up. If it does, well, I think you are aware of the rate of heating that would cause. I expect you will start to get invitations, if you have not done so already, to speak about the climate crisis/emergency at various events and functions soon :-)
HI David. Thanks, as always, for your kind comments. I'm very happy to say publicly that it was actually your email to me (and the post by Seemorerocks) that inspired me to make this video - so thank you for that. All the best. Dave
We need some aspiring chemistry Nobel laureate to devise a low energy/passive way to utilize the sun's radiation to break down by photolysis unwanted & harmful surface level ozone and in so doing increase the atmospheric hydroxyl radicals which in turn break down atmospheric methane. You saw it here first!
Talk to your local government!!
Another great presentation.
I hate these non-scientist vloggers, their videos are useless, they mention everything except which day precisely our world ends. ;) Great video, informative, well documented and summarized as usual
I know, right? They keep saying that in a billion years, the sun will go Red Giant and swallow the earth in a fiery inferno. I bet you anything jack shit will happen, just like every other doom and gloom "prophecy!"
LOL
great series, i love watching your video's. in northern italy we are about to experience the hotter heat wave since a century or so with temperatures as high as 40-43 degress celsius. it can be very hot in the summer, depending on heatwaves, years, ecc. but this year it looks we are going to see some unprecedented stuff. i wish i could do more to stop this madness. unfortunately nor I,. nor anyone else can. it is not by recycling that we will save our world. we would need to cut our consumption. less smartphones, less cars, less food, less clothes, less garbage, less everything... are we really interested?
by the way, we are living in a solar minimum right now, in 10-15 years we will be in a solar maximum. will be interesting to see what will happen to global weather once global temperatures will be already in a high thanks to global emissione, feedback loops, and we will add also the extra irradiation from the sun.
The methane 'Big Burp'. Absolutely terrifying. 8C world here we come!
Richard look at the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. The last time the planet reached 6 degrees above baseline. I suspect all life on earth perished and most parts of the planet, except at the poles became a tropical swamp. Scientist did discover Tropical fossil's buried deep in the ground.
JustHaveAThink...you are exactly correct. Nobody knows how big and what the trigger will be or when. However, it is a Positive Feedback Loop that cannot be put back in the bottle. Once it is triggered it could be the end of large animal existence, and death to sea life. It took Billions of years of struggle, courage and pain to get us to this point in our evolution. To jeopardize it all, is unimaginably stupid.
Although it still isn't a perfect idea, you could use that methane as energy and release less harmful CO2 rather than methane.
Good luck capturing it in any economical way before it escapes to the atmosphere
This is brilliant. Thank you so much. It reinforces the concept that we are heading for near term extinction unless we are able to wake up, radically reduce our carbon emissions, capture and store existing atmospheric carbon; and radically change how we are, how we live our lives, and how we relate with each other and with the planet.Phew! Thanks again, and thanks to Nataila Shakhova and her team. :)
do we have anything that can capture and store existing atmospheric carbon?
@@geoff8982 See Healthy Climate Alliance and the multiple options healthyclimatealliance.org/
See also Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) www.climateworks.org/carbon-dioxide-removal/
What about the scientists that say the world is in a carbon deficent?
Nature's little 'Reset' sub-routines are fascinating aren't they?
Recent research of thawing from the previous ice age shows no sign of any massive release of methane from the Arctic. There was significant release from the tropics as the temperatures increased. But, it was relatively normal considering the increase in vegetation..
Great presentation , surprised the frackers aren't up there hailing it as the next big gas play.
That would take care of the "problem".
I've read that one of the large Russian petroleum companies Rosnef or maybe Lukoil was looking into ways to harvest that methane. It would be better to burn it than to release it as methane into the atmosphere. I'm not advocating doing that. I think those hydrates are far too unstable and too close to the surface.
@@philmoore9829 Japan is presently working on harvesting methane clathrates but haven't heard anything in over a year. That tells me they're having very little success.
I listened to a fellow presenting his PhD thesis on that in a talk a few years ago. All I recall is that methane trapped between rock strata that are tilted reaches the sea bed when the rock strata do (think of Grand Canyon with the rock lines tilted so they surface somewhere) so there's a long line of gas bubbles along the rock strata separation.
link to Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov (in russian) - news.esp.tomsk.gov.ru/entries/novost-shampanskoe-v-arktike-uchenye-tpu-o-poteplenii-i-vechnoy-merzlote
No translate option but good to see it comes from what seems to be a govt website.
@@penguinuprighter6231 Perhaps Putin's grandfather runs it, for a hobby.
@@grindupBaker I dislike that KGB thug.
As usual an excellent presentation...although terrifying!
Stu Gerwyn AMOC shut down will be the only chance. Much to change.
@@rf-bh3fh Hi, yes I've thought this myself until I saw a lecture on the probable effects.Apparently we will have much colder winters and much warmer summers. With more extremes being the norm. But i hope you're right!
You posted this excellent video 4 hours ago, and you already got six dislikes. Peculiar. As if some dislike robot automatically dislike climate change you-tubers.
I just voted in agreement with you with my clicker finger. You get my thumbs up symbol Jens . My cat's name is Bozo. I'm 59 years old.
I'm hoping that the dislikes are in reference to the frightening implications of the message and not the excellent presentation by the messenger.
It's the bald head. I really like it but it freaks some people out.
Dislikes count as engagement and increase the likelihood of the video being viewed by more people.
www.us-ocb.org/arctic-surface-waters-release-methane-but-also-absorb-2000-times-the-co2-for-a-net-cooling-effect/
Finally someone is talking about methane. We don't stand a chance. Too late. Enjoy the moment.
Wayne Hooper yes indeed natural environment evolved to create and sustain humanity and might evolve organic intelligence to understand and adopt as well. Natural phenomena is exquisitely balanced and there is no reason for it to be any different in the coming years.
@@balasubr2252 There is reason to think it won't this time.
Hey, that's a great excuse for not even raising a finger to reduce pollution Wayne. We'll just blame the generation prior to us, in the exact same way they blamed the generation prior to them (with "We didn't start the fire.") The next generation can blame us, and humans can keep repeating that forever. Good idea.
@@robotnoir5299 Instead of doing what? To do anything don't any and every generation need an "knowledge/know how" to eliminate pollution? For every design perhaps shouldn't there be an end-of-life plan and a reverse logistics to restore to the original state?
@@robotnoir5299 But that wouldn't fix the problems, including the many health problems from pollution, we have now!
You can walk around Anchorage and see bubbles coming up out of lakes, ponds, mud puddles. Its been so hot here you can barely stand up.
Nitemare!
Humans: here for a good time, not a long time.
The good times are nearly over.
The first stage will we us watching the deaths of hundreds of millions in the developing world.
The second stage will be poorer people beginning to starve in Europe and US - they will need to be gathered into feeding centres.
The third stage will be the sealing of the cities to prevent urban raiding of farmland
The fourth stage will be a collapse in the agricultural support systems - fertiliser, fuel for tractors, seed supplies etc.
The final stage will be - well, let’s just say not very pleasant.
Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955): "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."
Clear and concise without any emotional weeping or hysteria. Although the omission of methane from IPCC calculations suggests some kind of malign influence on scientific opinions. Really this is a prime chance to employ the 'precautionary principle' that would champion low carbon sources of energy. If we had focussed our efforts on renewable energy earlier, instead of farcical military budgets, the price of energy wouldn't be gouging the life out of western economies.
Joseph Schumpeter: “Created by the wars that required it, The Machine now creates the wars it requires.”
Joseph Schumpeter: “Politicians are like bad horsemen who are so preoccupied with staying in the saddle that they can’t bother about where they’re going.”
Georges Clemenceau (1841 - 1929): "War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
We're toast.
Well you are what you eat. Could have been worse. You might have been dining on prairie oysters.
Thank you
Ha! I've been talking about that muskeg thawing and rotting since the 80's. This is a major very soon to be major issue.
Dr. Guy Mcphersen has pointed out methane not included in these reports for years .
really inspiring...the knowledge about permafrost helps people like me studying the various dimensions of viruses too....expect more of such presentations...
Thanks Mister Think, very interesting. I don't recall a fault line or fracture zone through the ESAS but I'll need to re-check my Miss Teen South Carolina Global Atlas. If I can possibly find time eventually I'll read that paper not so much because it might extinct all Life but more because it's FREE.
I've done the calculations for warming of the top 20 m depth of the Arctic Ocean with no Arctic Ocean sea ice. Presently the lower latitudes send an annual average of 122 w/m**2 to the Arctic Ocean. The top 20 m depth of the Arctic Ocean will have an average annual temperature of:
+2.8 degrees if the present 122 w/m**2 is still sent to the Arctic Ocean in warm air from the lower latitudes, or
+0.3 degrees if the present 122 w/m**2 in warm air from the lower latitudes is reduced to 90 w/m**2 after the Arctic Ocean has no sea ice and more of its "own warming". Therefore, it's going to be somewhere in that range of +0.3 to +2.8 degrees depending on where in the range of 90 to 122 w/m**2 is the heat sent in warm air from the lower latitudes to the Arctic Ocean. It cannot be
Excellent report! The IPCC is very conservative so we can expect climate change to get much worse sooner rather than later - probably by 2025.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body with an activist agenda.
Really good detail in this video, Dave. With the usual calm and professional presentation.
Also, like yourself, I've found it frustrating as to why the Arctic trapped methane [what the USA would deem Free Freedom Gas, no doubt] has been totally left out of climate models. I have only been able to conclude, so far, is that the release of methane from the permafrost layers is relatively less quantifiable, so far, and subject to many variables, so in order to not be deemed pseudo-science, the IPCC have preferred to leave this slow acting time-bomb out of the equation. Of course, such is the nature of HICC that the processes involved are invariably well underway before we commit to doing anything to attenuate them. This one isn't yet and therefore the measurable data is lacking in comparison.
It seems that unless the Grim Reaper is staring everyone in the face, governments would prefer to do what they've always done. That is to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and sing la-la-la.
"as to why the Arctic trapped methane....has been totally left out of climate models". It's because they have almost zero science to know what to put in. Contrary to the propaganda of the coal/oil shills the climate models actually do incorporate the physics as best known, and don't simply decide what warming they like and "tune it", so if they have worthless physics for an item they simply have no way of including it. The fault is not with the climate modellers. The fault is entirely with the humans who have steadfastly decided not to fund sufficient data to develop the science as in "...and we'll cut taxes by 3% when we get into office". This isn't rocket science.
Hi Andy. I completely agree. My cynical side says that the methane question is one where the fossil fuel boys have managed to really dig their heels in and send their smartest scientists and lawyers to block the IPCC's efforts.
@@JustHaveaThink Indeed. And I find it absolutely ridiculous. The FFIs are only delaying the obvious. It's time to start removing that $6.7TN global GDP annual subsidy. Then they might start to properly diversify into clean renewables and new power technologies.
@@grindupBaker Indeed not.
Awesomeness Program and host 💙☝
i Tech "Another problem My main complaint on this latest report is that it does not explain the GWP vs. gas concentration, and the spectral implications of green house gases. In very low concentrations, photons leaving the earth typically miss the GHG molecules. Doubling the GHG concentration doubles the number of photons scattered. The relationship is linear. As the concentration increases, photons get to where there is a 100% probability that they hit a GHG molecule, with the resultant photon going up or down 50% of the time.
________
At very high concentrations, all the photons are intercepted by GHG molecules. Seen from space (which is all that matters), only the GHG molecules near the top of the atmosphere radiate to space. .. But it is cold up there, and that determines how much of the GHG radiation leaves the earth. At these high concentrations, the relationship of concentration to warming is logarithmic. That is why they say for CO2 the warming depends on the doubling of the concentration. 1,2,4,8,16.. each interval requires double the prior concentration to produce the same heating".
________
________
Thanks. There's a misunderstanding of the physics in your comment but it doesn't alter any conclusions. "doubles the number of photons scattered". The photon isn't scattered, it's either absorbed or not absorbed (just passing through) with the photon frequency relative to absorption frequency band and the location within the molecule being passed through being what determines absorption or not. So, CO2 for example has a broad "sweet spot" at photon frequency 15.00 microns with smaller "sweet spots" at photon frequencies above and below that, thus having best absorption at photon frequency 15.00 microns because the odds of going through the "sweet spot" are increased.
---------------------
The conversion of transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER 1 photon quantity) to molecular vibrational energy usually results in that molecular vibrational energy being converted to molecular translational energy (aka "molecular kinetic energy" aka "heat") rather than a photon being released because the collision rate in the atmosphere is of the order of billions per second for any gas molecule (I can't remember whether it's 1,000,000,000 collisions /second or 5,000,000,000 collisions /second but it's a lot. Usually it collides before a photon is spontaneously released. This means that the long-wave radiation (LWR) TER is mostly caused by collision of gas molecules which then can have some energy converted from molecular translational energy to molecular vibrational energy in one or both of the colliding molecules if one or both of the colliding molecules has >2 atomic nucleii in it (is a GHG) then that molecule that got molecular vibrational energy might spontaneously release a photon of TER, losing its vibration. So a volume of gas warmer than 0K will be emitting LWR (or longer wavelength TER) even if no LWR is being radiated into it, the molecular collisions causing that. In essence the energy is transmutable both ways:
TER photon --> molecular vibrational --> molecular translational
molecular translational --> molecular vibrational --> TER photon, and also the partial you mentioned
TER photon --> molecular vibrational --> TER photon, and also
molecular translational --> molecular vibrational --> molecular translational
It just can't go directly TER photon --> molecular translational or molecular translational --> TER photon, it needs to go via the molecular vibrational state of a triatomic+ GHG molecule.
In this sense the cartoon used by climate scientists is highly inaccurate but of course that doesn't matter because it shows the basic concept.
I really wish we could just cease using any references to 2100. There may be alot of data sets already done for that year but it seems to also make people tend to lessen their emergency sense and relax a bit at a time when just the opposite needs to but isnt happening. We are just dead honestly, my family knows it but kinda brushes under the table, cant make every meal indigestable after all. 2100... i wonder what will the wolrld will actually look like then...que the welcome to the new world neo part of tha matrix movie. And it could be much much worse than that scene. It could be virtually unrecognizable??? Excellent production though btw, i enjoyed it.
You are right. That 2100 frontier is a way to keep the climate change issue from bringing people down. Mainstream media know how to minimize the horrendous truth.
Didn't she work for NIGR at one point, when gazprom was looking at harvesting the hydrate from the Arctic sea floor ridge?
If we slow ourselves right down it might seem like we are living longer ....Joke by the way ...Yes very helpful program ..thank you
This is one of the great unknowns about global warming that has the potential to really be a "GAME OVER" changer. It could cause a tipping point which is a very good case for observing the "precautionary principal" with respect to CO2 emissions reduction.
Principle.
you do an excellent job of understanding and communicating the state of climate science, keep up the good work.
Thank you :-) Much appreciated, as always. Have a good week. All the best. Dave
thanks. i'll go have a think. Good content good sir
Cheer up, Dave. You know what they say.
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, give a whistle!
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And always look on the bright side of life!
Maybe we should make Eric Idle the next UK Prime Minister?? He certainly couldn't do any worse than the prospect currently facing us! :-)
Any chance we could trap and store this methane before it gets releas ed?
I remember as a kid shoving a stick into a run-off stream by a field and capturing the methane in a jar. Bringing it to school science lab the next day and having the teacher lighting it for everybody.
Lovely. The worst case scenario just got a lot worse, nevermind more likely. Beachfront property in Arizona, anyone?
Watch out people! After the methane release your winter will be -10C instead of -20C. Better stock up on ice cream to keep cool.
Well hello to the Venus 2.
I wonder if that is really possible for earth? I honestly don't know and on face value it appears to be a likely scenario.
@@MiniLuv-1984 Our pollution matches the drivers for a Venusian atmosphere.
Both fossil fuels and chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, that catalyses CO2 to stay in the atmosphere.
How Studying Venus Saved Earth
th-cam.com/video/5QN1Lcojg9c/w-d-xo.html
EDIT: fixed spacing
Hi Guy. Are you balancing the Audio by taking off some of the Hi End. You know, old people lose their hearing, and the first thing to go is the high end. It makes you sound kind of mushy and it is difficult to distinguish between vowel sounds. So, anyway, take a look at what your Audio Filtering looks like, and if you are clipping the High End, well, turn the knob. Thanks.
Good info, great presentation, but BAD news.........not sure if it's OK to plug a FB page, but check out Climate Change Preppers group. I'm a member, not a moderator. we see what's coming, but don't give up hope. lots of great info.
i don't use face book but i'm interested to know, what sort of preparations can you make for a global climate disaster? Stocking up on tinned food, moving to higher ground, building an ark, shooting your fellow humans in the race to own dwindling resources? Whatever you lot have in mind you are p***ing into the wind. Can you really prep for life on a planet that is about to become a globally hostile environment. Unless of course you are simply planning to leave (like the dolphins).
@@fuccasound3897 I just want to avoid the ugliness as long as possible. I would rather spend my last years in relative peace, close to nature, not stressing out in the rat race. It's not like the world will stop turning in year XXXX. Those who are prepared will have more control over their own lives, even as the world falls apart. Perhaps you should join one of those NTE groups if you think all hope is lost, but that seems kind of oxymoronic.
@@brucewilliams2106 That's why, thirty years ago (having done a degree in environmental science) i moved into one of four small cottages, with fields on one side, a wood on the other, and a lake beyond the wood, i can see the sun rise and set because the view to the horizon is across open country. my work is as a gardener, i don't watch TV, i my possessions are few. i share my space with a cat. i watch the hares in the fields, the buzzards in the sky. So been there done that, but it doesn't change the fact, that the planet is crashing and burning. So lead the best life you can while it lasts, be prepared to bend like wheat in a field on a windy day, the idea of 'control' is one of the reasons, i think we have made such a mess of this planet.
Good video, you're a good speaker.
It is beyond comprehension that tens of millions of Americans utterly dismiss all of this because Al Gore said it was happening.
Also appalling are the Americans who deny this simply because they lack the education required to understand the science.
I know people who will say this is ALL "just your opinion".
It's truly sickening.
In 2017 a huge poll showed even most Republicans in the US believe that human caused warming is real and is also a serious issue, but only like 30% of ALL Americans polled then thought it wouldn't be a serious issue in their lifetime. I think that has probably changed in the last two years with the record forest fires last year in California and Oregon and 2 mega storms in the Midwest this year, which have wiped out the same farmers crops twice in period of a month or so.....Now in polls it;s the number one issue of concern for dmocrts and democrat leaning voters (which is like 60% of the population ) Also, importantly , most if us have only been told what the IPCC has said !! :-( I myself, therefore, had no idea all the factors involved and the tipping pints we've beyond until a few months ago. I think it's very shocking and heart -breaking (and anxiety triggering ) for most people when they learn the truth, it was for me, but I am having some success in just the last few days talking to people about this on social media in groups that are not even climate related not that politically progressive generally. I am trying to drive the pint home that here in the US we can and MUST reach zero emissions by 20130 NOT 2050 (and must elect a President, as well as as many people at all levels of government with that sincere goal The science has been challenging for me (I honestly previously had had a kind of science phobia and have pretty much no science education but once I started to hear about these things I personally wanted to learn more and more and ask questions /compare opinions of scientists/ examine who they are and how much they really know and/or will be truthful about etc )
Dana----Good for you for trying to understand this. A basic knowledge of chemistry would help, as all of this is within the realm of that part of science.
We will not reach the 2030 goal. it is not possible for several reasons.
First, we have an infantile president who claims anthropogenic climate change is nonsense, supported by millions of fanatical people who will follow him no matter what any science says. In addition, their idiotic hatred of the Clintons and Al Gore keep them from ever accepting any of the science which Gore presented in his movie...all of which was true, none of which was beyond 6th grade science, which is where most Americans are functioning.
Second, I believe very few people actually grasp the enormity of fossil fuels in the continued existence of mankind. A population of 7 billion could NEVER have been reached without the use of petroleum, and taking that out of the food production process is currently unthinkable on any level. Agriculture currently produces 25 % of GHGs, human related. How will we get that number to zero when the actual turning of the soil makes a carbon signature?
Third, ...well, sure I would love to see this electrified world, no more Diesel and gasoline engines. Unfortunately almost NONE of the requisite infrastructure exists, not the solar farms, not the wind generation, not the charging stations, not the power lines. These things all exist, true, but we only have enough to provide a couple of percent of our needs. It will be decades before that infrastructure is capable of replacing fossil fuels.
Forth, is that there is so much talk of "ending Big Oil" ...that day is never coming. Oil is too valuable to be burned, it's true, but as a chemical feed stock, it is utterly, absolutely irreplaceable.
Last (in this post)....The multiple feed-back mechanisms at work in our climate cannot be reversed for the most part. The permafrost-methane/CO2-warming-thawing cycle cannot ever be reversed because once it has thawed, it would take decades of extremely cold weather to freeze it again. (See "heat of fusion of water"). This combined with the longetivity of CO2 in the atmosphere, the decreasing albedo in the arctic, and the world's in creasing demand for oil ensures that these processes will not regress.
Adaptation to a hotter world is the only measure which we can undertake now.
Yes, sadly that includes every Republican senator.
Very informative, and simply explained for ordinary folk like me, great job!
The person who takes the time to climb up higher in the tree gets a wider view. Most people don't climb trees if you know what I mean. It's my opinion you don't own a fidget spinner and you are not ordinary. People with a decent education seem to want more. Have a good day.
Thanks for this excellent report! Keep up the good work!
Thanks Bazarov. I'll do my best!
It seems that increasing global dimming may be our only way of slowing down this catastrophe.
Global dimming does nothing to prevent the other evil sibling to rising temperatures - ocean acidification .
@@ArmwrestlingRevolt It would slow down the melt rates. I have no hope. I've been watching this for over 40 years. It's too late now, I agree.
The times are dire but doesn’t your suggestion allow the masses to remain complacent thereby allowing the problem to build and when budgets are reduced the temperature jump is amplified because CO2 kept building while this barrier was in place.
@@ArmwrestlingRevolt Yes. It could, and judging from homo sapiens' behavior would. I'm fully aware that energy conversion is what has allowed us to grow too large in population. But I don't want to die from starvation, and or heat exhaustion. But like my dad always said- people only act when there's a crisis. Well, not all of us.
@@ArmwrestlingRevolt We need to do BOTH - get rid of CO2 asap and work on geoengineering for global dimming (that technology in its pre-infancy at the moment )
Brilliant presentation! Thanks!
They will not consider this till the end of ALL civilization and then even they will not acknowledge this fact
Perhaps we should wait until global-warming-alarmists get JUST ONE prediction right. They've been wrong 100% of the time so far.
Don't forget, the global-warming-alarmists claimed the Maldives would be completely submerged by now. wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/ LOL. Obviously, even though we're now AFTER the predicted deadline, there's still no difference at all. And businesses are so sure that nothing is going to happen soon that they just built another airport runway there in 2018. Why would they do that if the island was about to submerge?
Global-warming-alarmists simply distract us from reducing pollution that actually matters.
If you think that greenhouse gases drive atmospheric temperature, water vapour by far exceeds methane in its absorption spectrum. It can only be considered significant when it oxidises into C02 and water vapour. Nevertheless, the existing greenhouse gases are already enough to absorb all the LW back radiation. Also the greenhouse warming model doesn't account for the significant effect of convection. The atmosphere is not a glass house.
Fascinating crap.
The first million solar installations in the USA took something like 30 years. The second happened in the last 3 years. Let’s keep it up!
Personally, I installed 10KW and leased two electric cars. The panels keep up with the house and both cars 10 months of the year!
YOU CAN DO THIS TOO!
The quantum physics and bulk physics is:
-----------
- A greenhouse gas molecule that isn't vibrating can be made to vibrate when it collides with another molecule (I don't know what %age of the collisions do this, I never studied quantum physics).
When this happens the combined kinetic energy (sum of square of speeds) of the 2 colliding molecules decreases.
The molecule will get one of its many vibrational modes that have various energies depending on the mode. This energy will precisely match the kinetic energy loss of the 2 colliding molecules because energy cannot be created or destroyed unless equivalent matter is destroyed or created (nuclear fusion/fission). I don't know whether the vibrational mode acquired (or none acquired) is dependent on the speeds of the 2 colliding molecules or the angle of collision or both so it might relate to the speed difference such as whether the greenhouse gas molecule is slower so it gets a kick but I'm just throwing out guesses because I never studied quantum physics.
-----------
- A greenhouse gas molecule that is vibrating can lose its vibration when it collides with another molecule (I don't know what %age of the collisions do this).
When this happens the combined kinetic energy (sum of square of speeds) of the 2 colliding molecules increases by a kinetic energy precisely matching that of the greenhouse gas molecule's vibrational mode that ceased. This is a greenhouse gas molecule's "Molecular Vibrational Energy" being converted to additional "Molecular Translational Energy" of one or both of the 2 colliding molecules. When 2 molecules collide the slower one speeds up and the faster one slows down. This is called "heat transfer" in bulk with many molecules involved. It's also called "entropy" or "The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics" (always homogenizing Universe, so 2 things colliding never causes the slower one to slow down and the faster one to speed up because that would be reducing entropy in a closed system and entropy cannot be reduced unless it's being increased somewhere else in the Universe by an equal or larger amount (So the Sun's relentless entropy increase can be used in theory to decrease the local entropy of Earth's sphere out to the stratosphere or some such by using the energy that Sun delivers into Earth's sphere on account of Sun's relentless entropy increase converting matter to energy. I think I've digressed but that's why the coal/oil shill meme that greenhouse gases can't warm Earth's surface because surface is already warmer than atmosphere above it and (they say) "defies the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics" is a load of tosh because Earth isn't a closed system because it's open to Sun and the Universe)). "Molecular Translational Energy" is also called "Molecular Kinetic Energy" and when the molecules are in vast quantity such as a cardboard box full of them it's also called by the more popular name "heat".
-----------
- A greenhouse gas molecule that isn't vibrating will absorb a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation if the wavelength of the radiation happens to coincide with an aspect of the molecule's vibrational modes in that the photon's energy (which depends on its wavelength) precisely matches one of the vibrational energies of the molecule. When this happens
the energy quantum has been changed in form from the Universe's basic energy transverse electromagnetic radiation to "Molecular Vibrational Energy". See the previous item for how this "Molecular Vibrational Energy" might get converted to "Molecular Translational Energy" (heat) if the molecule happens to collide before it spontaneously releases a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation. I recall reading that the Mean Free Path and speed are such that the chances of losing that energy by collision (changes to "heat") are orders of magnitude more likely than releasing a photon spontaneously before collision (1,000,000,000 or a few 1,000,000,000s of collisions / second, I forget exactly, research it).
-----------
- A greenhouse gas molecule that is vibrating can spontaneously releases a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation and stop vibrating. The wavelength of the photon will precisely match the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" that the molecule had before it stopped vibrating. This means that if it spontaneously releases a photon from "Molecular Vibrational Energy" that it got from absorbing a photon then the wavelength of the photon released will precisely match the wavelength of the photon absorb. If it got the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" from a collision then the photon released will be at the wavelength (i.e. energy, wavelength determines energy) corresponding to the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" vibrational mode that it got on collision (see above for how I don't know what collision details determine that). Each greenhouse gas has a number of vibrational modes with a specific energy for each mode and more complex molecules have more vibrational modes so are more powerful greenhouse gases. Also though the power of a greenhouse gas will depend on what specific band of transverse electromagnetic radiation wavelengths it absorbs (which is determined by its vibrational modes) because the spectrum that the ocean surface sends up into the atmosphere peaks at 10 microns so for example, if CCl(3)Cl(2)F, CClF(2)CClF(2) and CH(2)BrCH(2)F should all absorb intensely in a band between 7.5 and 12 microns then this encompasses the 10-micron peak of the spectrum that the ocean surface sends up into the atmosphere so it would be a very powerful "greenhouse gas" and have great warming effect in very small quantities. I seem to recall from years ago (but I might be remembering wrong) that you can find vibrational modes of CO2 at www.barrettbellamyclimate.com which has a more comprehensive description of greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect than my comment here anyway. The vibrational modes of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere (it's absorption/emission spectrum) correspond to a series of wavelengths of transverse electromagnetic radiation in the following range:
---------------
wave-l cyc power
micron / cm w*cm/(m**2*cycle)
510-550 ~0.4 total in the low-frequency wing
18.18 550 0.015
17.86 560 0.025
17.54 570 0.067
17.30 578 0.148
17.24 580 0.148
16.95 590 0.150 Flat top 590-670
15.00 667 0.150 The centre, the peak.
14.93 670 0.150
14.71 680 0.149
14.49 690 0.148
14.29 700 0.147
14.08 710 0.145
13.89 720 0.144
13.70 730 0.142
13.51 740 0.141
13.51 750 0.139
13.33 760 0.128
13.16 770 0.052
12.82 780 0.033
12.66 790 0.010
790-830 ~0.90 total in the high-frequency wing
That isn't a list of CO2 vibrational modes above.
That's divided arbitrarily by me into 10 cyc / cm intervals. You can likely find at www.barrettbellamyclimate.com the CO2 vibrational modes that cause that overall power distribution above. The "power" values listed are specifically the amount of power that's being absorbed in Earth's atmosphere).
---------------------------
The combination of 4 energy transformations above plus Earth's atmospheric lapse rate of 5-10 degrees of temperature decrease per km of altitude increase depending on humidity (average ~6.75 degrees / km) results in warming by the "greenhouse effect" because energy is being sent to space from greenhouse gas (GHG) molecules at a range of altitudes in the atmosphere instead of being sent to space entirely from the surface and the energy amount becomes less as the atmosphere becomes colder (becomes higher) because colder means slower gas molecules (see the 1st section above) so fewer collisions / second so less "Molecular Vibrational Energy" of the GHGs per second so less transverse electromagnetic radiation is being spontaneously released (fewer photons / second). So the more GHG molecules there are the higher/colder is the average place in the atmosphere from where they can make it up through the other GHG molecules above and get to space so there's more Sun's radiation energy getting absorbed than Earth's radiation energy being sent to space, so Earth's atmosphere, oceans & land must warm. The warming sends more radiation energy to space from GHG molecules in the atmosphere than it did before and when it finally matches Sun's radiation energy getting absorbed the warming stops. That's global warming when it's caused by increased GHGs. It's now 83% of Earth's radiation energy to space is from GHG molecules in the atmosphere and 17% is direct from Earth's surface because that 17% is in a band of wavelengths that aren't absorbed by H2O, CO2, CH4, O3 or N2O (called the "atmospheric window"). An increasing GHG can cause warming until there is so much of it in the atmosphere that all radiation energy in its absorption band of wavelengths is being sent to space only from its molecules at the very top of the troposphere in the tropopause where the atmospheric lapse rate of 5-10 degrees / km altitude no longer applies and temperature remains constant, then the GHG effect is "saturated" in its absorption band and no further warming can be caused for that particular band.
A thousand thanks for your demonstration of methane phenomena, I watched it twice and took an hour to go thru the links , which are mind blowing BTW. What I would like to see are current videos of the methane bubbles in the Siberian Sea, I have read there are kilometers wide patches of bubbles and thousands of patches. Is this true?
Hi James. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. I'm delighted the video was useful. If you're after more info on the extent of methane, there are videos on TH-cam that talk about this. In fact it's a big deal over in Canada where they are experiencing a similar phenomenon. Type in 'Canadian methane release' or something similar. Cheers. Dave
How is Natalia Shakhova doing? Are they still doing methane studies?