Why do RUclipsrs replace videos so rarely, even if they know a video contains a mistake? It's because if you upload a correction, that will be recommended to people who have already watched the first version. They are unlikely to watch it again, or not watch it entirely. The almighty algorithm concludes that the video is not interesting and stops recommending it to other people. In brief, taking a video down is a bad idea. As you see, I did it anyway. That's because the first version of the video contained a serious mistake, which is that I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. I had forgotten that carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so left to its own devices the levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.) It's a mistake that you find in other places as well, but I think it's really important to get this right and I do not want to contribute to spreading it. You will greatly help us if you let this video run until the end, maybe give it a thumb up if you think it deserves it, and share on your socials, if you still use those and if you think other people might find it useful. The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699515745778x206633411542960240 Thanks for your patience. We try really hard to avoid mistakes, but sometimes they slip through despite our best efforts.
Tread carefully might lose a lot of subscribers over this one a lot of idiots out there think it's completely impossible to get rid of positive carbon emissions.
We can easily use excess solar energy to initiate Paralysis on organic material and carbonize it then take that carbon and put it into the ground which will help things grow because it is like a coral reef for nutrients in the ground... and this process will off gas usable fuels that can be burned for heat or other sources.... because it's done in the oxygen free environment you maintain the carbon structures and because you're putting the carbon back into the ground it becomes clean energy that helps you grow more food that you can use the waste from to make more clean energy.
An awful lot of manufacturing moved from the us and Europe to China at the same time the emissions dropped in the former and raised in the latter. I don't think this was so much a reduction in emissions as much as just moving them around.
There were also real emissions reductions in the US and EU, due mostly to switching from coal to gas and renewables for electricity generation. China is also cleaning up its grid and transport sectors at a rapid rate.
No it did not just move them, it increased them. In the west we use gas, in China they use soft coal. Assuming the current Chinese regime lasts, which is questionable, the "Greening" of the EU and US has and will continue to raise because it changed and will continue to change the emissions from gas to coal which employs more people than employed in the EU and US who will live in newer more energy demanding housing powered by burning coal in addition to operating the factories. This is not particularly clear because the Chinese either lie or simply fail to report their statistics.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Renewables, yes. Gas, no. Gas is as bad as coal for climate, replacing CO2 with methane. 70 countries have mostly renewable electrical grids, 23 at or near 100%, 2 near 100% total energy. Almost all energy being built in the world now is renewable, while efficiency has replaced more carbon than anything. Primary energy in general (direct use of fuels in transportation, industry, & buildings) is being electrified all over; that's the necessary first step in renewablizing it.
Carbon has negligible effect on climate as an honest use of the radiation codes shows. With coal it's all the other stuff especially from soft coal. FACT is that US emissions have gone done due to switch from Coal to gas.
I'm so old I can remember when climate scientists were telling us we entering a new ice age. They have no more idea now then they did back then. But it worked magnificently as a funding program !!
@@tuberroot1112 That was H. H. Lamb and what he said in the introduction to one of his great books was that if it weren't for greenhouse gas emissions from humans we'd be going into an ice age. If you look at Net Zero from that perspective, it's a terrible goal besides being impossible. Cold will kill more people than +2 degrees C will.
Sabine is the ultimate no-bullshit scientist. I'm doing research on this topic and it's important to recognize that a lot of our environmental initiatives are a lot of noise - and short on substance.
When we consider how much carbon capture and storage AND carbon removal costs, we should consider if there are other more effective carbon-lowering investments that we could do instead. If the former only reduces CO2 by a fraction of a percent and for the same amount of money we could transition away from fossil fuels by investing in additional renewable energy, reducing emissions by several percent, then the latter investment is the wiser.
@@rachelbraaten5285capitalism is unable to encourage long term gains over immediate ones. As long as everything that gets done is done for profit, nothing will change. The West are currently increasing the cost of EV's by putting tariffs on China. They don't care about climate change unless there is money to be made.
I was midway through watching your original video, when it conked out. Thank you so much for your integrity to retract this video and repost. These are complicated topics, and we appreciate your acumen in researching and conveying these to us, whether or not they concern Einstein or quantum mechanics.
I can't help but notice how we in the West claim good economies while greening. 😂 While being wildly dependent on the developing world for almost all goods. So we are actually responsible for the carbon of the developing world. That gives us the ability to have a service economy while downplaying our impact on co2. It truly comes across as disingenuous.
To further add injury hammer third world countries with "your emission bad" (even if they dont have the highest emissions) that way they get mixed signals on wether they are allowed to industrialize or not lol.
@bastiaan7777777 actually when you think about it. The companies are Western with a clear goal of suppling that market. Consumption in emerging markets is the growth potential. The clear goal is to take advantage of cheap labor and supply the West. Of course, they'll use this opportunity to grow. It's not helpful, however, to pretend it's not our mess. It is!!!
@@Memegorillavr You are pretty ignorant if you think that those countries produce exclusively for the west. Also, why deny those countries their wealth coming from said productions?
The countries that have reduced their GHG emissions have done so by closing their carbon intensive industrial base and farming the work out to developing nations. So really they have not prospered from reducing these emissions. They have just moved them to another continent. Excellent content as always.
Most European countries closed their coal mines and heavy industries over 40 years ago already though, much of the recent carbon reduction is from replacing coal with gas & renewables.
@@backintimealwyn5736 draconian regulations? Like how people used to drive small European shitboxes which averaged 1:15 (L:km) and now drive big SUV’s averaging 1:10? And France always had nuclear, and the rest of Europe is downsizing / closing nuclear power plants and installing wood burning plants that use Canadian forests to make pellets… Europe has been dumping their filthy mfg’s overseas since the 1970’s. Western European countries have been changing into management states in stead of mfg states. So on paper they pollute less… and the factories that DO pollute can buy carbon emission offset rights (paper again) so that they sell off their pollution to, for instance, Tesla factories in the US. Smoke and mirrors.
We know how horrible climate change is. When all the wealthy fly their personal jets to every meeting, instead of doing virtual meetings. When they talk about the rapid rise of the oceans, then buy beach front property. When they shift manufacturing out of countries with good waste control measures. To countries with horrible waste control measures. Maybe we could get another celebrity to tells us how we all need to do our part. Right before they jet out to their private yacht.
Hi, I'm a tree! Some fun fact: there's an expression in Japanese which sounds like "ki ni naru" and is written 気になる. It means: 1. to weigh on one's mind; to bother one; to worry about; to be concerned about; to care about; to feel uneasy; to be anxious 2. to be interested (in); to be curious (about); to wonder (about); to catch one's eye 3. to feel like (doing); to feel inclined to; to bring oneself to (do) But if you write it like 木になる, it has the same pronunciation, but it means "to become a tree" (or "I become a tree" as Japanese verbs don't have inflections for person). Combining these, you can say "ki ni natta" and it will mean "I got interested in" or "I became a tree" depending on the context (in speech) or depending on how you write it.
With all due respect, but how about supporting the politicians that are trying to achieve this rather than a sympathetic, intelligent bystander who can just move on with her life after making this video? I come from the Netherlands, the country of Timmermans, the architect of the Green Deal. He is getting a lot of nasty reactions. That's because the decisions of politicians affect everyone while opponents of climate change will never watch this video resulting in a like minded echo chamber. Just as there are like minded echo chambers advocating the total opposite in other RUclips channels. We are all shielded from that, contrary to the politicians that have to take the bullets (sometimes literally, see the recent Ecuadorian elections).
It is a tax accounting trick - get your carbon credits for manufacturing in China but that’ll never get the atmosphere carbon dumping down. It is a fraud.
I appreciate your call for carbon capture, I am only worried about the insane amount of energy that will cost and whether that energy couldn't better be used for other purposes.
I'm not able to prove it, but i suspect, it would be in most cases much cheaper to stop CO2 Emission than to capture it later... but you can sell Carbon capture as a hope, and a reason, not to stop emitions right no... we can just go on... sad, but this is the way, most humans are.
Of course, if scientists and engineers are interested in doing this then they will develop a way to carry this process out efficiently. Or else it would've been impractical to make it work at a large scale.
How much of the reduction of CO2 from Europe stems from the fact that many industries has been outsourced to China though? It's easy to claim economic growth in Europe if it's because we displaced it to China instead.
Much easier to have confidence in a communicator that can admit to their mistakes and correct them. Bit of a novelty in the climate "debate"! I felt a bit more optimistic after watching the video.
Now she can delete this one too and admit she was wrong about EU being 2.3 above pre-industrial in 2022 because they are two different things. Then she can remove the lie that we can continue "decarbonising" without hurting prosperity because we improved efficiency once. Like eating less, that does not work indefinitely.
@@tuberroot1112 sorry, accusing someone of lying when they have just demonstrated a willingness to admit and correct errors is the sort of adversarial partisan rhetoric that indicates further discussion will be unproductive. If you want to show she was wrong, give references to your data sources and present your argument in a more moderate manner that suggests that you are willing to consider counter-arguments to your position.
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏 🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏 🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏 ❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
@@opensocietyenjoyer She uses facts to back her statements and you espouse a dumba55 ad hominem to counter her scientific facts. Permit me to use a similar troupe you employ by quoting a very wise rabbit: "What a maroon! What an ignoramus!"
Also, some nations are fudging the numbers. For example, Canda doesn't count emissions from bushfires as it isn't manmade however they count the carbon absorbed by trees (which isnt manmade).
Another point is that carbon removed by trees is only temporarily removed. Eventually, the tree dies and rots (or lately, burns) which liberates the carbon again.
Sabine, thank you. I really enjoy your communication of science. I am curious though specifically about the reduction in greenhouse emissions in Europe and North America, why is no mention ever made of their transfer of poluting industries specifically to China and other parts of the world? How much of the coal powered electricity genration around the world goes to produce goods for Western consumption?
There is mention. You probably didn't notice. I knew of this transfer decades ago. China was building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per week and both China and India vowed to raise the standard of living of their people by burning coal at large scales.
@@solconcordia4315 There were no mentioning of Europe and US deliberately moving "dirty" production to China and other developing countries still comsuming major part of products from these factories. Moreover there was attempt of scam with carbon tax wich for some reason should pay factories and not consumers of the goods :) Let it be consumers and then they will be more cafull with chosing what to buy and producers will be competing in lessening emissions :)
I'm glad you focused on eco-system restoration at the end. I've long thought that if we took a look at building up new ecosystems, and revitalizing old ones, much of the carbon capture would start to take care of itself. I also think new strategies like regenerative agriculture need to be looked at more seriously. If we start treating our farms like ecosystems we'd likely environments flourish. I understand why institutions focus on carbon dioxide, as it is easily quantifiable. However, I fear an overfocus on just the molecules, rather than the cycles and ecosystems in which those molecules are involved, misses the forest for the trees. Here's to focusing on building reslience through ecosystems!
Yes, let’s not forget that climate change is just one part of the problem. We can live in a perfectly net-zero world while still destroying the Amazon and ravaging seabeds.
Your not wrong... But also, we have in just a century liberated millennia worth of sunk carbon. Nature will not simply catch up without our application of technology, which is what has brought us to this point. But don't despair the numbers work out, we can undo what we have done. Life isn't the only way to build co2 into HC chains for permanent storage...
That is actually how climate cooling project Justdiggit works. It has proven it can contain desert land, preventing them from growing, and even reclaim desert areas by making sure rain stays at the same place instead of flushing away. The net result is that new vegetation grows at areas where there was previously none.
Taking down a video because of a prior mistake, and correcting that mistake in a followup video despite being punished by the algorithm deserves respect. Burning trees and capturing the carbon from it is an idea I haven't heard talked about before, but you are right in that it's the released carbon, not the combustion that's the problem, and that burning fossil fuels is releasing excess carbon while burning trees would be burning non-excess carbon. Although I am sure things are more complicated that the simplistic explanation I have here.
Just for awareness there is research with a diffrent solution to the climate change with experimentally verified results the gist of it can be found here ruclips.net/video/tdhfuu5lPNM/видео.html or search climate error on youtube
@@MarcoVermeij excess carbon is actually harmful to plants. There has been studies done where the CO2 content in the air is increased (inside a controlled environment) and plants actually grew less. I also believe there were models created based on the data. Now I don't remember the specific reference off the top of my, but I am sure if you do some googling you'll find it has long as you don't stick with your bias. Also, Venus proves excess CO2 can be very bad. CO2 in Venus' atmosphere is believed to contribute heavily to why Venus is a lot hotter than it should be.
Not a tree but I just wanted to say hey anyway. Good to learn the difference between carbon capture and carbon removal. Thanks for reuploading with the fix. Big hug to you
" ..and the only thing we can do to get to net zero, is to actively remove carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.." if only there was an organism that would eat CO2 and poop out something good for everyone, like Oxygen. And also be solar powered. And best of all, if it could become food for animals and even people. oh oh oh, and make it so that it can live on land AND water. HOW awesome would an organism like that be!!! Plant's enter chat :)
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏 🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏 🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏 ❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
@@MR-backupthe problem is, they have always do that, at the rate they have always done that, and only that "waste" which did not decay back into the carbon cycle was sunk carbon. If you account for all the time and how very little amount of life ended up as hc chains, that we then burnt for (~20% of the) energy content... You will notice the math is that direct photons via PV panels are about 4 orders of magnitude more efficient. Coupled with the cosmically tragic rate that we have been burning those handy HC chains, and you'll see that simply stopping the combustion, IE: net zero. Won't come close to re-sequestering that which we've liberated. We will need to over produce via renewables (which is actually quite easy), and then deploy the majority of that towards artificial sequestration. This gets us back to a pre industrial carbon cycle in balance, maybe. And at the end so much excess energy that space might be a good place to spend it by lifting some mass out of our gravity well...
@@MR-backupIt is covered under Biochar😉 Although its impact is not fully understood and the produced amount is used again, instead of being buried in the leftover pits of lignite mining. We also could refill the Ruhrpott, limiting the forever costs.
The resistance to CCS almost reminds me of the Gatorade scene from idiocracy. "Fossil fuels and combustion is bad!" "Yes, because they release carbon into the atmosphere." "So what should we do about it." "We should capture the carbon so it's not released into the atmosphere." "No, that's a bad idea." "What? Why?" "Cause that would not reduce the use of fossil fuels." "But why would that be a problem if we capture the carbon?" "Because fossil fuels are bad!" "Yes, because they..." Sigh.
See, this is why I trust your word over the countless others on youtube who talk about similar topics. Not many are willing to admit and fix their mistakes and accept that there will be a downside in views as a result of it. Although I think with you, people, like myself, will rewatch it to see the ammended version.
In 2023 planet earth breached 1.5C ~100 times compared to the 1880 baseline or 1.7C when compared to the 1750 baseline (whichever is more convenient). The numbers the IPCC reports are so insanely conservative. Why aren't we talking about feedbacks and tipping points (AMOC, antarctic and arctic sea ice loss, desertification of boreal forests and so on). Do people know we've lost 80% of the volume of Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years? What about biodiversity loss (70-86% reductions in insect populations over the last 50 years etc)? Poisoning of oceans, rivers, lakes and seas with toxic chemicals? The poisoning and overheating of oceans has reduced the ocean Ph to ~.79-.80 acidic enough to dissolve calcium carbonate shells of plankton and other sea creatures (hence why we've seen 50% reduction in their presence over the last 50 years in addition to many other species including coral reefs). All of these factors are symptoms of human population overshoot... the human species' innate need to dominate and destroy every ecosystem it comes into contact with. When will we have enough? And when will we stop having Carbon tunnel vision?
The video is improved, but it is not actually fixed. Unfortunately, Sabine did not crunch the numbers, so she mistakenly believes that carbon dioxide is taken up only "slowly" from the atmosphere by natural processes, and that if we achieve net zero the levels will just "slightly decrease." In fact, if we achieved net zero, the atmospheric CO2 level would be falling even faster (slightly faster) than it is now rising. Averaged over the last 10 years, the atmospheric CO2 level rose only 2.45 ppmv per year (= 0.603% per year). The reason I say "only" is that human CO2 emissions averaged more than 5 ppmv per year over that same period! The reason for the large difference is that natural CO2 removal mechanisms (mainly terrestrial greening and ocean uptake) are removing more than 2.5 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere per year. So if we were to achieve "net zero" today, the atmospheric CO2 level would not plateau (as many presume), nor would it only "slightly decrease" (as Sabine supposes). Instead, the level would fall rapidly, at an initial rate of about 2.55 ppmv per year (though the rate would decrease as the level declines). That decrease in CO2 level would quickly (in only 10 to 15 years) cause the current radiative imbalance (0.3±0.1 W/m²) to go negative, at which point global temperatures would presumably be falling, rather than rising. What's more, natural CO2 removal mechanisms accelerate by 1 ppmv per year for every 40 to 50 ppmv increase in the atmospheric CO2 level. That means if our emissions were to remain at the current rate, the atmospheric CO2 level would rise by only about 100 to 125 ppmv before plateauing, because natural CO2 removals would then equal our current rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. That 100-125 ppmv increase would represent just 1/3 of a "doubling" (log2(533/420)=0.34), compared to the 58.5% of a doubling of CO2 that we've already seen (log2(420/280)=0.585). That would eventually yield perhaps 1/2 °C of warming (compared to about 2/3 of the 1.15°C of warming we've already seen [WMO estimate] which is believed to have been due to CO2). Inasmuch as the 1.15°C of warming we've already seen (since the late Little Ice Age) has been generally beneficial, there's every reason to believe that another 1/2 °C would also be beneficial, or at least benign.
@@gregelliott1948 wrote, "In 2023 planet earth breached 1.5C ~100 times compared to the 1880 baseline or 1.7C when compared to the 1750 baseline (whichever is more convenient)." [1 of 10] The WMO estimates that global average temperature has risen by 1.15 ±0.13 °C since "preindustrial" (late LIA 1800s). To put that into perspective:
● 1°C is the temperature change you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet.
● At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of about 60 miles.
● 1°C is a little less than the hysteresis (a/k/a “dead zone” or “dead band”) in your home thermostat, which is probably 2-3°F. Your home's “constant” indoor temperatures are continually fluctuating that much, and you probably don't even notice it.
● In the American Midwest, farmers could fully compensate for 1°C of additional warming by adjusting planting dates by about six days. *Note:* Growing ranges for most important crops include climate zones with average temperatures that vary by tens of °C. Major crops like corn, wheat, potatoes and soybeans are produced from Mexico to Canada. Compared to that, 1.15 °C is negligible. What's more, the warming is disproportionately at chilly high latitudes, where it is unambiguously beneficial.
gregelliott1948 wrote, "The numbers the IPCC reports are so insanely conservative." [2 of 10] That's backward. The IPCC is dominated by people working in the climate industry, and their estimates for key climate metrics are generally exaggerated, and their projections for the future are wildly so.
O2 is made in the daytime, CO2 is output in evening. nb "Plants release carbon dioxide at night through a process called respiration. During the day, plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it to create energy through photosynthesis. However, at night, plants continue to respire and release carbon dioxide instead of taking it in" Your talking tree is confused.😁
@grindupBaker More like 100 years actually, a regular sized lake take 10 years.That means in 2124 all excess heat from our modern solar maximum will have vanished.
@@albin4323: That's both true and irrelevant. The equatorial areas will experience an increasing number of extreme and inhospitably hot days and increasing food insecurity leading to social unrest and migrations. Because of the more extreme waviness of the jet stream, further towards the Arctic could be anything from drought and fires to floods, early or late frosts and invasive species. SEE: "NASA Watching the Land Temperature Bell Curve Heat Up (1950-2020)"
@@lrvogt1257 Solar minimum causes more wawy jetstream than just global boiling, some extreme weather has increased mainly because of the weakening solar cycles since 2007 when modern maximum ended (1914-2008)
@@infinitytoinfinitysquaredb7836yep that’s how they got their name, it was free dial-up internet. A few companies did this. Their dialer app showed a banner ad on top. I had a Mac, so I used ResEdit to change the window type to be resizable, then I could hide the ads 😅
DAC needs a gigantic amount of green energy to operate in a climate-relevant way. For larger DAC plants in planning, we are talking about the world's largest solar plants or even nuclear power plants and then of course the question arises why we need all the resources for carbon negative emissions if we don't even manage to decarbonize the energy sector.
DAC is a distraction because every kWh of renewable energy used for DAC removal displaces that same kWh of energy that could be used to power the grid therefore keeping carbon intensive electricity generation online.
Yeah, DAC won't work without first doing the simple things. But BECCS and biochar should work. Though thay are limited to the amount of biomass we can get. BECCS also partially solves the energy issue. Maybe a worthwhile shot?
I agree that carbon capture (DAC or otherwise) isn’t an excuse for continuing to burn fossil carbon. But I’m good with doing early research and experiments on it now, so we can apply it once we have decarbonized the energy system and can build out surplus clean energy.
I just noted that you've passed 1M subsribers. congrats ! :))
Год назад+13
It's quite bizarre that Sabine talks about China's emissions without mentioning that in per capita emissions, China is the 15th polluter, behind Canada, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Japan, among others. Also forgetting that China is today the so-called factory of the world, therefore, if we consider the consumption of Chinese products in these other countries, this attribution of blame becomes even more discrepant.
China has no environmental laws that need to be obeyed and they do not care about nature. They pollute to an insane degree, both their own country and the atmosphere. Every climate change agreement china has ever been part of, they never made any contribution to it. Bottom line, everything that is currently being produced in china could be produced for less co2 and less pollution in other countries. So yes, we can absolutely blame china for the pollution it causes, because they have never made any move to reduce it.
Hey Sabine, I want to pinpoint out that another mistake that environmentalist groups make is opposing nuclear power. It's the cleanest and safest energy source that we could have, but is phrased as 'dangerous' by infamous accidents. Talking about that, there were 3 major accidentes in history between the more 100 nuclear power plants around the world.
There are plenty of reasons to not like nuclear but at this point I don't object in principle. The problem is that they are very expensive , take very long to install and they tend to lose vast amounts of money.
@viktorfunk1819 History shows us that a society that lives in fear of the security of it's future can be easily controlled. The more esoteric and obscure the fears can be, the more easily they can be confused and accept irrational fears and even more irrational solutions to their invisible dangers. The "overlords" know that they are safe behind their closed perimeters.
I think she meant USA and Europe which she discussed in the preceding 2 minutes. However a) Not sure the inhabitants would agree about prosperity b) although CO2 reduced, its nowhere near net zero.
I would actually argue that most of China's curve belongs to the countries that are ordering product from there. We essentially only relocated our manufacturing to China. If we didn't do that and all of our manufacturing stayed in the USA and Europe, China would not have seen as big of a spike, but we would have been much bigger.
China and India are unhelpful partners on this sinking ship called Earth. The West woke up to the fact that our ship was sinking fast due to our forebears and our actions. Then China and India came along and viewed to attain economic justice by emitting their fair share of greenhouse gases to achieve the West's standard of living. That tantamounts to bailing water onto their side of this ship as the West bails hard the water sinking all of us, out of this ship. Ring around the Rosie, Pockets full of posies, Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.
@@time3735 I feel y ou lack the attention span to appreciate the scope of what's happening. It's not something that would just take a single tik tok video to convince y ou.
@@guillermoelnino That's a very good way to divert the question and make up a totally different reason about attention and tiktok. If it is conspiracies which most tiktok users fall for, then sure I don't believe it. If it's something that's true and you understand it well, then you would have simply explained it but clearly none of you do. And I know you're only here to grift but at least you should have "critical thinking", which you also lack.
@@guillermoelnino okay? 😂Coddle me? Lmao. What's more funny is how ignorant people themselves love calling others ignorant. Nothing of use to say. What a waste of my time. Of course, stupid grifters.
Show me the evidence. I see many wind farms and solar PV farms in South Australia and not a single one was built on ground not already cleared over a century ago for farming.
The USA Europe and China should be paying billions of dollars per year to South American , Central African and southeast Asian nations to declare all their forests as protected massive CO2 capture facilities. Instead of agriculture and cattle farming, pay people to regenerate the forests and keep them alive and growing.
I’m not sure having a quantifiable goal is helping anymore based on the results so far and the muppets we have in charge. Also I wonder if the natural processes are going to start to degrade as well as the oceans become more saturated and the forests get cut down or die?
Aw yes. When will "they" cut down all the trees? I mean, how stupid of "them" to just keep cutting and cutting and never replanting. Don't understand why all the trees haven't all been cut down already. What? Do you mean to say there are more trees in continents with active forest products industries then there were 100 years ago? Can't be. This is just lies from shills for the forest products industry. After all, "they" are just too stupid to know that if they didn't replant more than they cut that their most important raw material would disappear. And we all know they are too stupid to realize that. Now you be a good boy and don't use paper or wood. Save a tree, y'know.
What are you talking about? We’re experiencing Global Greening, it’s observable from the Space Station. Greenhouse Gases are turning the world more green.
I think you are not taking into account the legislation that has passed in the US in the last couple of years. The Chips and Science Act, the Infrastructure Bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act contain massive incentives for GHG reduction and development of strategic clean manufacturing in the US. I agree that natural carbon sinks will degrade to a certain extent, but I don't think it will be enough different to worry about.
Everything in the research seems to indicate that we would be best off by trying to adapt to temperature changes, instead of trying to centrally plan the entire global economy into producing just the right amount of greenhouse gases.
It's also virtually impossible for 0.042% of our atmosphere (420ppm) to have any measurable impact on global temperatures. The other 99.958% of the atmosphere (999580ppm) will let the heat back out.
That's overall false argument. The pigment in your paint is a small percentage, but it can change transparency properties of it drastically. And then paint your car white or black and see which is hotter under the sun.
Carbon dioxide removal could be something useful to do with excess electric power. In Australia, excess solar panels mean that power prices are zero while sun is shining.
The construction of solar panels has a cost which generally offsets the benefits you'd get from their existence in the first place. There's also not enough resources to construct enough solar panels to generate enough power to solve any real issues.
@@rusty6172power that is generated must be immediately used or store. At certain times a day, especially when using green energy, there is a surplus. It could be used to generate sodium hydroxide, which can be used to remove CO2 instead of being wasted. That was my point
@@dmitripogosian5084 it is expensive except when sun is shining. Government incentives cause so many solar panel installations that there is excess power. Then the coal electric plants started shutting down because they were no longer economical, causing prices to soar! Unlike North America, Australia has no significant hydro power.
@@dmitripogosian5084 it is expensive except when sun is shining. Government incentives cause so many solar panel installations that there is excess power. Then the coal electric plants started shutting down because they were no longer economical, causing prices to soar! Unlike North America, Australia has no significant hydro power.
As far as I know "Net Zero" is just the same as the expression "Carbon Neutral" which used to be in use a lot some time ago. Of course any 'net zero' or 'carbon neutral' condition implies a steady state level of carbon dioxide, without actually defining what this level is, or what level is acceptable.
It does actually... "net zero" makes sense when you take into account the whole life cycle of something. For instance... A wood panel for a building might have a negative impact if the wood is mulched at the end of it's life and more trees are planted to replace those cut down to produce said panel. It's not impossible but it's also not feasible that EVERY single industry would plant enough trees to offset their emissions. Therefore we need to have a system that makes it expensive to pollute as an incentive to not do so. At the end of the day all you need is that everyone reduces emissions as much as possible and someone compensates for the remainder.
My point is that with equal rates of output and input there is a steady state CO2 concentration which persists in the atmosphere. This will tend to be close to the level at which carbon neutrality of the whole economy is first achieved. What this level is, would have to be adjusted (reduced) by periods of greater input than output. The main purpose of economy-wide carbon neutrality, is to stop the CO2 level rising any further. There are many other practical problems too, planting trees uses land area and there is an increasing pressure on the use of land because of the growing global food shortage which has been causing a long-term rise in global food commodity prices. Biofuels have caused problems by competing for land use with food production. @@pedromoura1446
Hi Sabine. Thank you for educating me. Thank you for working so hard to try and get to the bottom of all this "global warming" talked about by others. Thank you for trying to put the facts out into public. I am not a tree.
Or the energy requirements for the Green New Deal. They have to be more than what "green" energy can provide. And then there's the question of how much ecological destruction we have to do in the name of green energy in places that are out of sight of the voters. And then there's the question of how much of green energy relies on oil based materials to keep weights down on green vehicles. The questions go on and on but we're dealing with a religious movement not science so everything is answered by our having faith in our leaders.
Just to make i clear, I think we should abandon the use of fossil fuels/oil in the long term, or at least the burning it. Obviously not by destroying nature elsewhere. I just don't believe carbon removal from the atmosphere in a substantial amount, so it has an impact on global warming, is feasible...
I see that tree planting and use of timber for construction are listed under Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). I've been in favour of this for 35 years. It's a no brainer really. Why aren't there massive programs for this?
Because over time the wood rots and turns back into CO2. Unless you burry the wood or turn it into charcoal and then burry the charcoal, you're not removing any CO2 long term. Maybe you do for 50 years or so, but sooner or later, the timber would have to be replaced and the old one would be either left to rot or burnt, both of which will turn it into CO2 again. But if you do burry the wood or charcoal, you're basically just producing coal and storing it back underground, thus doing the opposite of what the industrial evolution caused. In the long term, that's a very correct thing to do. But currently it still doesn't make any sense to do it today, while there are other people around the planet still digging other coal up and burning it. You get a much bigger bang for the buck if you stop those people digging coal first. If you try to store wood or charcoal underground today, then the entire industry chain involves digging coal to burn it in coal plant to drive an industry that produces charcoal and stores it underground. That would just be a circular effort getting us absolutely nowhere. Energy production from gas/coal/oil has to stop first, and then once we have excess energy, we can use that to produce synthetic gas/coal/oil and store them underground to finally undo this mess. Also, we first need to get rid of coal economy first, because if you capture CO2 and store it underground as wood or coal, who's to stop existing coal companies from just buying the land, digging it back up and selling it?
I thought the same until i realized that cutting down a tree releases carbon. From machines, transport, machining processes, even soil being disturbed , and unusable waste wood. Secondly, the timber in a building still has a lifespan and eventually it will rot or be demolished and then release carbon. We humans have a tricky problem to solve.
@@pm7294 it depends...all of these are negative impacts that can become minor to null. If more trees are planted carbon can still be captured faster than it is released(growing trees consume co2 way faster than fully grown ones). If we add to that the removal of the need for fossil fuels the machines will not release as much co2 and there's techniques that diminish the soil disturbances, Etc... The problem is that we need to have combined approach to almost everything is not just a matter of changing one thing and solving all our problems.
@@pm7294 It is a "zero sum game". First the carbon is fixed in the wood during the growth of the tree, thus extracting it from the atmosphere. Then, during the process of degradation, ie, rotting, the carbon is released.
You talk about a possible decoupling between economy and energy, but if greenhouse gas emissions have decreased in Europe and the United States it is because these countries are deindustrializing. And if GDP increases it is thanks to debt. In reality there is no decoupling between economy and energy. What we no longer produce by polluting we import from countries which continue to generate greenhouse gases.
Offshoring the stuff we make and then importing the embedded carbon is where we are in the West. Until we embrace nuclear technologies I can’t see us reaching net zero for many decades to come.
It's clear from this video that we, as a species, are dealing with an over-abundance, an epidemic you could say, of things that are not Kermit the Frog.
I love your videos Sabine. You hit the nail on the head with confusion over carbon removal and carbon capture being confused by many people, in fact there are so many problems with nomenclature in the whole climate change field, I guess because it is a "new" field of interest. From the components of a domestic PV system (inverter now means something so different and more complex to what it did 10 years ago), to the many terms and acronyms used on a bigger scale. I think another area of poor understanding is the magnitude of effectiveness of different things we can do ourselves. I think many people believe installing PV is the best low carbon decision for their domestic heating, which turns out to be very wrong. I had a house largely heated by fossil fuels (methane) and I switched to a heat pump and a renewables tariff. After six months I did a fairly detailed calculation of the CO2 emissions from both setups and was quite astonished that they had fallen by 97%. I had done it as fairly as possible taking into account the renewable energy mix of my supplier and their lifetime carbon intensities. This reduction translates to a 10 tonne/y reduction in CO2 emissions, for context this would be equivalent to 10 transatlantic flights per year (not that I fly anymore!). Or about 6 times the emissions from a typical (ICE) car driven a typical number of miles per year. In the above calculation I also had changed and inefficient gas cooker for an electric one. I calculated that a more typical house would save 95% of its CO2 emissions, still a colossal change.
I am glad to give Dr. Hossenfelder credit for her courage to speak up against crazy environmentalism. She has to KNOW the elites will push back against her if she seeks university employment. This is even MORE reason to support her online. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
"The rich" being the main problem here. In almost every country, the wealthiest 5-10% of households cause more total emissions (and in some cases FAR more) than the bottom 50%. This is one reason why a decently implemented CO2 tax (so a CO2 tax where every citizen is paid back the average amount) is very effective. It puts a price tag on emissions and rewards those who make eco-friendly choices (without even requiring them to know that it's eco-friendly!), while at the same time helping low incomes rather than making things even harder for them. For a millionaire, this for example puts a higher price tag on private flights or owning many heated mansions. This leads to some direct reduction, and to some redistribution. Parts of that redistribution also end up in the state's budget again (poorer people buy more => pay more sales tax) and can be invested to speed up the transition to low carbon energy and increasing energy efficiency (like building insulation standards).
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N This one that you suggest look like something intended to hollow up medium class. Bottom of society would indeed get even a minor cash handout. Top 1% would pay, but wouldn't change their behavior. The medium class and especially lower medium class would be priced out. Are you some part of those Davos champagne socialists? Or are you a Marxist who tries to speed up revolution by causing social collapse?
For instance: The economy didn't grew 61%. GDP did but doesn't include for instance inflation. If GDP has risen slower than inflation your economy is shrinking.
Anyway green deals hurt the economy as you can see in Germany. It's in the numbers of spending power too. Big problem of less aerosols from fossil fuels is that it will not block sunlight which leads to more global warming. It's a stalemate position. Best thing you can do is use loads more seawater and build so can handle climate change. Check Judith Curry.
I loved the look on your face in an old video when you asked the climate change modeling expert what happened when they modeled the point of no return global warming and the climatologist said we never tried to model it.
Plenty of evidence that the natural world has negative feedback loops that keep things in relative balance. In short the idea of a “point of no return” is contradicted by hundreds of millions of years of data.
@@sirrathersplendid4825negative feedback curves nicht weiter as follows: more CO2, it gets warmer, Vegetation spreads further, especially in northern regions were there is sufficient landmass, vegetation takes up CO2 (creating wood mass), this CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere. Less CO2 is in the atmosphere, the heat decreases, ...
@@xheerioyes. Plus 2 more negative feedback loops … most importantly, CO2 causes accelerated vegetation growth & ability to survive more arid climates. Secondly, all precipitation originates from evaporation. By increasing evaporation through higher temperatures, this increases the rate of precipitation which also increases vegetation growth rates. Plant hydrocarbons are 99% made from water and CO2. Sabine’s stunned look reaction regarding no simulations were attempted to model the Global Warming “tipping point”, was an obvious reaction to realizing the global warming fear narrative was not science based, contrary to the marketing propaganda.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Clouds are a MAJOR negative feedback loop that everyone ignores. Higher temperature => more evaporation => more clouds => more reflected sunlight (albedo) => lower temperature.
I like Sabine and her content a lot. Unlike a million other female content creators she doesn't worry about what lipstick she is wearing, how perfect her hair is or apparently puts much thought into what she is wearing. i.e. Sabine's has her priorities right: what's between her and our ears. As a female who unintentionally often looks like I have been dragged through a hedge, I really value a high profile youtuber promoting thought and science over the facade of exaggerated social presentation. Bye the way in Scotland Crabbit means grumpy. I tried my best not to be grumpy here. Thanks Sabine
Sure they do. It's not that complicated. The fossil fuel industry has a $4 TRILLION a year stake in keeping the fuel burning and that is having extremely negative consequences. Burning less fuel is the only way to mitigate the damage.
@@olibertosoto5470: Less CO2 emissions and slower temperature increases... which is the primary concern now. Freedom from dependence on OPEC+ and the FF companies etc so less ability for them to threaten, coerce and bleed us of cash.
I watched to the end and gave it a like, as I really respect anyone finding errors to correct in honest ways! (Now, you have some videos to do on photons for QM which links directly into entropy - something I find you have fundamentally messed up.)
I may be misremembering, but in a book by Steven Pinker called Rationality, he mentions that to switch to purely solar and wind and meet the 2050 goals, a land the size of Germany needs to be covered with solar and wind every year. By the end, we need more than the size of all of North America to do that. In addition to that, storage technology and deployment is nowhere near sufficient and storage alone would take years to catch up. Many experts suggest nuclear power to be at least a transitional (if not permanent) power source.
Bioenergy also captures carbon via root deposition. The plant grows above and below ground, but we only harvest the above ground portion. No till agriculture plus deep rooted perennial plants cause carbon soil levels to rise. Forests and pastures are both good at this. Coppiced biomass has the ingredients to do so, but I'm not aware of studies on this.
Hey Sabine, danke für das tolle Video! Könntest du das nächste Video um MOND und Dark matter machen. Da dein Hintergrund in der Suche nach QG liegt, würde Mich deine Meinung sehr interessieren.
In case anyone is wondering what the mistake was, this is Sabine's explanation: "I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. [However] carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so...levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.)
While I appreciate the integrity and attempt to be as accurate as possible, she wasn't wrong. If we stopped all anthropogenic emissions overnight, feedback effects mean that, at least for a short while, temperatures will continue to rise. The last bit of emissions will lead to a slight increase in temperature, which in turn leads to a slight change in water vapour partial pressure. This means increased water vapour, which itself is a greenhouse gas, which in turn increases temperature, which will loop until the effect equalises: kind of like how a spring continues to oscillate after it is released. Other complications include plant leaves thickening with increased CO2, which in turn reduces the carbon take-up from photosynthesis. Well known effect from greenhouses if plants aren't pruned regularly. In short, no-one can really quantify the effect, but we can be pretty confident that this will happen.
Great presentation. Capturing CO2 from the air is great. To explain it to my grandchildren I asked them to spill 250 gram of Smarties in grandmas kitchen and then collect the Smarties. One grandchild, a smart girl, proposed NOT first to spill the Smarties...
To be even more correct, you should spill 400 grams of smarties in one ton of similarly sized pebbles, mix everything carefully and then sort it back out.
@@markotrieste True! but That is too expensive. Grandma is Schwäbisch. She took 1 kg of Basmatie Rice and colored 25 rice grains red. After mixing she spilled all 60000 rice grains over her kitchen. Her grandchildren are still looking for those red rice grains.
As Kermit once said/sang "It's not easy being green....." :) A thought provoking and balanced video. Not taking one side or the other. Just pointing out the current facts. With a bit of humour.
An excellent video. Very balanced. I feel you missed a massive opportunity by not mentioning capture through regenerative grazing techniques with ruminants. It's been proven to be highly effective at increasing soil that can easily capture huge amounts of carbon.
I had a feeling all that had been debunked - more propaganda from the meat producers. Soils can and do regenerate very well without grazing by animals, and vegetarian diets greatly reduce carbon emissions, (typically 50-75% reduction for vegans), water use and land use.
@nicolasgirard2808 it can allow 2-3x as many animals per acre as traditional grass-fed techniques. So, no, it's doable especially if we can utilize more nutrient-poor monocrop lands for it to provide more nutrients for humans.
The problem with this is that these are all temporary solutions. We're not capturing it and storing it away permanently, we're just temporarily storing all the emissions in the soil/grass/trees. As soon as they die and start decomposing, they release it all back, both methane, CO2 and NO. This is a temporary solution to buy us time. And we definitely need those, but we still gotta recognize it's only temporary.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy you are correct with trees but for soil, if it's managed correctly we aren't only removing the soil as in industrial monocrops, we are continually building soil.
I’m downloading and commenting to keep the video share rate climbing like Kermit D. Frog scaling a carbon emissions graph. Thx for your commitment to good science.😊
i just love it how academics, politicians, and others who have little problem with keeping their jobs or paying for their food, accommodation or fuel seem to think that the economies appear to be doing fine. economies and personal wealth and health is being rapidly destroyed.
Scottie Power looked at CCS for their Longgannet plant. They found that CCS would increase coal consumption by 1/3 and would only remove the additional carbon. In other words it increased their cannibalistic energy (operating energy) increased which would have increased their price per unit for electricity.
That's why a lot of people say that "Clean Coal" is BS. CCS is capable of being useful, but not when you have a process like coal-fired electricity generation that is already economically marginal. (Which is why all the coal plants in the US will be gone before long.)
@@incognitotorpedo42 "coal-fired electricity generation that is already economically marginal" Huh??? Coal fired plans are the most economical way of producing electricity. Ask the Chinese, they produce 2/3 of electric from that black gold.
A fact often ignored is our economies have been able to sustain themselves only because other countries are producing the goods we need. If everyone starts closing their factories and no one produces anything, things will probably collapse
"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" still works well as decades ago. I don't miss the "lost production" of tetra-ethyl lead gasoline additive to prevent car engine damage. I won't cry over the "lost production" of chloro- or fluoro- carbons, either. I can still drive a car and have air-conditioning and refrigeration.
@@solconcordia4315I think what they are getting at is the fact China and India have high emissions relative to the EU because everything is made there. Recycling at an industrial scale still creates carbon pollution, though it is probably better than all new things for a variety of reasons. Ultimately there is an inherent economic problem, because capitalism requires growth to operate. So even if we personally could each be happy with what we have, there is a problem in that none of our societies are built to work in that way.
There has been some discussion here in Canada of a possible project to plant large numbers of trees along the northern fringes of the Boreal Forest in the far north of Canada. They should grow well because it's warmer there now than it was. I hope the plans are generated such that the same variety and distribution of tree species are planted there, so that the same ecosystem is extended further north. (I don't know much about the nutrient content of the soil there. I hope it's suitable.)
Trees grew in those northern latitudes, and on the edge of the Arctic Ocean, about 4000 years ago. Tree stumps are preserved in those areas that have been carbon dated to that period. I wonder what caused such warming back then? Almost as if we are in some sort of earth climate cycling scenario? That's where all the data point to.
Southern scandinavia's been planting pineseeds (help reforesting, airplane planting) from pines couple a kilometers more south each year from 70's, because of warming temperatures. The same latitude trees nope. Also, Oaks no longer need much protection for winter (yes, in southern seaboard and some local microclimates there are some old ones).
It's an easy task to reach net zero. Since 10% of the world's population are the consumers of the products and services thatf generate 90% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions, we just have to gather them in the biggest Eat the Richs Festival of the history of mankind. Getting rid of the residual 10% will be 10 times easier. (Heavy Sarcasm (Sorry Sabine I didn't ask if you were part of the 10% we are talking about!))
Happy to help you defy the algorithm for good causes, to save the environment and to cheer you on for doing the right thing scientifically and correcting errors.
Yes but the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases or decreases in line with CO2, thats why CO2 levels are the emphasis on driving climate trends.
Our local council made a big show of planting 20,000 trees this spring. By autumn, 15,000 were dead because nobody had watered them. Big headlines when they plant them. No headlines when they die.
I do think the CO2 capture if applied to a variety of industries other than energy generation will do the job of filtering the air but I think the effect on temp will be meager at best due to so many other factors in climate processes. And what worries me is that if they don't meet the target, they would then proceed to go so off the wall & this would affect people's living standards.
The amount of co2 needed to be removed from the air is simply too much. Like, you can't really imagine the true scale of the industrial operation required to extract co2 from the air, and it's not likely to be possible to build an industrial co2 extractor that actually takes in more co2 than it costs to construct. We're talking about printing carbon piles that are the sizes of cities and then finding a place to store it; an entire ecological disaster on its own... and then that's just to cover 1 year of emissions (~40 billion tonnes of co2 per year at present).
It's trivial to point out that the higher the concentration if the gas you want to remove, the easier it is to remove. If we can't economically extract CO2 from flue gas what's the chances of removing it from the atmosphere, where concentrations are 1000 times lower? The only method I see working is to use different soil tillage techniques. If you could put an extra one mm of carbon depth in the topsoil of farmland every year that would roughly to stop C02 increase in It's tracks.
My goal with industry is to extract from the ambient air or flue vent just for the sake of filtering the air out. There is no way to extract co2 out of the entire atmosphere & that is why net zero is a pipe dream. So pragmatically I just focus on mitigation rather than utopian targets. What I'm afraid of with the alarmists is that they would not appreciate any improvement; they are too focused on a target that one cannot hit. When I look at the emissions of sulfur oxides in the USA & how they have come down 90% I think that is a tremendous achievement. So if we stick to what is pragmatic we might get something done. I fear the govt taking away vehicles, stoves, furnaces all because they are obscessed with net zero. Add the filtration, there is likely to be improvement.
11:20 very important distinction between CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) and CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). CCS does not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Thank you so much for making this point, Sabine!
I find the argument that CCS does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere erroneous. It requires far less energy to capture CO2 from combustion exhaust gases than from the atmosphere. Of course, storing 5 billion tons of CO2 per year forever thereafter is not a minor problem. To me nuclear energy remains the answer to the problem, preferably MSNR, currently being tested on a useful scale in China. Unfortunately progress with MSNR is much slower than I was hoping for 10 years ago. I suspect there are big hurdles.
Climate "Science" is the BIGGEST FIELD OF JUNK SCIENCE. It is designed to DESTROY civilization to a HUGE fascist totalitarian world government controlling peasants. Period. Of COURSE climate is changing. It ain't us. Try REAL science.
Uber rich claim they are net zero because they buy carbon credits. Since you can’t actually make a difference that way then the whole business is bogus.
That money pays the companies (that do real work) extra money so those that are doing good are able to expand their good actions. If you can't do it, at least you pay others that can. Now if they open a carbon credits credit card, yeah, it's just piling up with no one taking. Fortunately, there are no credit accounts for carbon credits...yet.
@@anthonylosego bull! Most of those companies fail to provide what they get paid for & all startups have failed. But that hasn’t got anything to do with the SCAM! You aren’t doing a damn thing to offset the added emissions of private jets or super yachts because there is no physical thing to buy!
I watch John Robson from Nexus. My understanding is the planet needs Co2 for plants to grow and thrive. Co2 levels are lower now than at previous times in history. If Co2 levels were reduced, it could have a detrimental effect on the planet. The whole Net Zero obsession is highly suspicious. It is back to the old adage, who benefits from it. Love your videos.
It is correct, we had much more lush forests with dinosaurs, because of higher level of CO2. It is the food for plants, after all. The questions is whether humans are compatible with lush forest environment :)
Steve, I recommend you stop watching John Robson, because he is filling your head with disinformation. The CO2 level today is twice what it was just 200 years ago. This is a provable scientific fact. There is no disagreement about this except from liars.
Patric Moore whom started Greenpeace has said the same Co2 has been far higher in the past, with very favourable results. Net Zero is as ridiculous, expensive and disasterous to the western world which just pushed the Co2 production towards China, which have no intention of enacting such foolishness. Its well known that many pump Co2 into greenhouses as plants grow spectacularly.
@@dmitripogosian5084 Correct, and there are very many renowned climate and geology scientists who agree. Indeed, CO2 was over 15 times higher back 600million years ago, and has been reducing ever since. It got close to 150 parts per million which would be the death of all life on earth. Greenhouse farmers increase the CO2 inside from the 400 to 1200 parts per million to achieve more effective plant growth.
Sure CO2 is good for plants. But it is a greenhouse gas and is warming the Earth. That is changing climate we are used too. Some places like Australia is drying as a result and water access in populated areas is becoming a problem. Another issue is sea level rise due to melting of glaciers. Eventually, coastal cities will become unlivable and result in mass migration. It is just too simplistic to say CO2 is good and leave it at that.
Another major tipping point is when frozen CH4 clathrates begin to thaw releasing methane plumes off the arctic seabed. 100x more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 within the first 5 years. Growing evidence is showing as the arctic seas warm, the concentration of thawing methane hydrates is rising significantly as well. (Sharpova et al) Up to 2000 gTonnes of CH4 has the potential of being released.
How many supposedly extinction-level "tipping points" have come and gone since Al Gore and Greta started spewing about them? BTW, Al seems to have retired on a pile of cash, and Greta seems to have a new mission now. Maybe "climate change" wasn't the existential threat they claimed it was.
Another very interesting and very understandable video, thank you. It would have been interesting to add something about the cost of the various CCS and C removal methods, and in case of 'artificial' methods (i.e. other than vegetation/biomass) the energy requirements. And with regard to stabilizing temperatures after net zero, I have doubts about that: the delayed temperature response might be (much) stronger than the effect of the slightly decreased CO2 level. Ref. Hansen et al. Global Warming in the Pipeline.
@@clayed3311: CO2 is a very good thing... in the right amount and in the right place. Plant's like the CO2 for growth but PLANTS HATE the excessive heat, drought, fires, and floods the excess CO2 is creating.
I've always found your videos entertaining, educational, and thought provoking. Thank you. Current concern over atmospheric CO2 makes me wonder what happened in the past to cause increases and decreases in CO2 levels. After all, animals are not the only lifeforms on earth that have evolved over the past 500 million years who both adapt to and affect the environment. Looking at CO2 graphs going back before the carboniferous period, it appears back then the CO2 level was above 2,000 PPM and the earth was humid and tropical. Note that 2,000ppm would be harmful to most plant life today. This period saw the evolution of lignum and cellulose in trees allowing them to grow tall in dense forests (more CO2 storage per acre). As plant life died at that time, the bacteria that could digest this new lignum and cellulose had not yet evolved so the trees could not decay but became the coal we have today. The resistance to decay from lignum and cellulose in trees at that time allowed them to store CO2 from the atmosphere into the ground as coal causing CO2 ppm levels dropped to about where they are today. This might have continued until today except for the End-Permian Extinction 252 million years ago which was a terrible setback for life on earth wiping out 96% of marine and 70% of terrestrial life (including plants). Once again there was a surge in CO2 levels. Since then, it appears CO2 levels have trended lower reaching a practical minimum of around 200ppm. I say "practical minimum" because whenever CO2 falls to that level in the last 400,000 years or so, 2 things happen: 1) We have an ice age. 2) Plants die off because they are CO2 starved. Once plant life dies off and decays, CO2 levels rise again allowing the earth to heat up and the cycle repeats. This has been the pattern until we apparently (and unintentionally) found a way to break the ice age cycle by releasing CO2 prematurely. The unintended benefits are: 1) Plant life (including food crops) continues flourishing. 2) No ice age. It may turn out our unintended manipulation of CO2 levels has benefits few can comprehend and even fewer will admit. Don't read too much into my rantings. I'm not educated as a climate-geologist (geoclimatist?). I'm just a semi-retired control systems engineer who has worked in almost every industry and research field from fossil fuel to nuclear, fertilizer to foods, mining to chemicals, and magnets to gravity waves.
8:55 i fail to see how our economies are doing well. I guess if you mean the rich are staying rich then sure but my pay packet is nearly twice what it was ten years ago but disappears about twice as fast as it used to as well. So in real terms i am worse off than i was ten years ago.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Why do RUclipsrs replace videos so rarely, even if they know a video contains a mistake?
It's because if you upload a correction, that will be recommended to people who have already watched the first version. They are unlikely to watch it again, or not watch it entirely. The almighty algorithm concludes that the video is not interesting and stops recommending it to other people.
In brief, taking a video down is a bad idea.
As you see, I did it anyway. That's because the first version of the video contained a serious mistake, which is that I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. I had forgotten that carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so left to its own devices the levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.)
It's a mistake that you find in other places as well, but I think it's really important to get this right and I do not want to contribute to spreading it.
You will greatly help us if you let this video run until the end, maybe give it a thumb up if you think it deserves it, and share on your socials, if you still use those and if you think other people might find it useful.
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699515745778x206633411542960240
Thanks for your patience. We try really hard to avoid mistakes, but sometimes they slip through despite our best efforts.
Thank you for bringing so much real and correct ideas/information in your vides and in your writing
Alright.. I'll watch an episode of friends while your video is playing on my phone.
Tread carefully might lose a lot of subscribers over this one a lot of idiots out there think it's completely impossible to get rid of positive carbon emissions.
Admirable. Your capitalism video could use some similar thoroughness though.
We can easily use excess solar energy to initiate Paralysis on organic material and carbonize it then take that carbon and put it into the ground which will help things grow because it is like a coral reef for nutrients in the ground... and this process will off gas usable fuels that can be burned for heat or other sources.... because it's done in the oxygen free environment you maintain the carbon structures and because you're putting the carbon back into the ground it becomes clean energy that helps you grow more food that you can use the waste from to make more clean energy.
An awful lot of manufacturing moved from the us and Europe to China at the same time the emissions dropped in the former and raised in the latter. I don't think this was so much a reduction in emissions as much as just moving them around.
There were also real emissions reductions in the US and EU, due mostly to switching from coal to gas and renewables for electricity generation. China is also cleaning up its grid and transport sectors at a rapid rate.
No it did not just move them, it increased them. In the west we use gas, in China they use soft coal. Assuming the current Chinese regime lasts, which is questionable, the "Greening" of the EU and US has and will continue to raise because it changed and will continue to change the emissions from gas to coal which employs more people than employed in the EU and US who will live in newer more energy demanding housing powered by burning coal in addition to operating the factories.
This is not particularly clear because the Chinese either lie or simply fail to report their statistics.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Renewables, yes. Gas, no. Gas is as bad as coal for climate, replacing CO2 with methane. 70 countries have mostly renewable electrical grids, 23 at or near 100%, 2 near 100% total energy. Almost all energy being built in the world now is renewable, while efficiency has replaced more carbon than anything. Primary energy in general (direct use of fuels in transportation, industry, & buildings) is being electrified all over; that's the necessary first step in renewablizing it.
"Gas is as bad as coal for climate"
Look up the carbon:hydrogen ratio in methane vs coal and think about that again.
Carbon has negligible effect on climate as an honest use of the radiation codes shows. With coal it's all the other stuff especially from soft coal. FACT is that US emissions have gone done due to switch from Coal to gas.
I'm so old, I can remember when "Net Zero" was a company that promised free internet. Yeah, that didn't work out either.
I'm so old I can remember when climate scientists were telling us we entering a new ice age. They have no more idea now then they did back then. But it worked magnificently as a funding program !!
@@tuberroot1112delete your existence
@@tuberroot1112 That was due to all the smoke. We mostly fixed that, so that's why it didn't happen.
@@katrinabryceaccepting that happened in the US, yet it wildly increased in China and India. You might want to rethink your conclusion.
@@tuberroot1112 That was H. H. Lamb and what he said in the introduction to one of his great books was that if it weren't for greenhouse gas emissions from humans we'd be going into an ice age. If you look at Net Zero from that perspective, it's a terrible goal besides being impossible. Cold will kill more people than +2 degrees C will.
Sabine is the ultimate no-bullshit scientist. I'm doing research on this topic and it's important to recognize that a lot of our environmental initiatives are a lot of noise - and short on substance.
Well, it's the noise that gets you the funds.
When we consider how much carbon capture and storage AND carbon removal costs, we should consider if there are other more effective carbon-lowering investments that we could do instead. If the former only reduces CO2 by a fraction of a percent and for the same amount of money we could transition away from fossil fuels by investing in additional renewable energy, reducing emissions by several percent, then the latter investment is the wiser.
@@rachelbraaten5285capitalism is unable to encourage long term gains over immediate ones. As long as everything that gets done is done for profit, nothing will change. The West are currently increasing the cost of EV's by putting tariffs on China. They don't care about climate change unless there is money to be made.
She is irresponsible in arguing against taking action. Her urging against taking action is reckless.
@@alf23wlf she’s arguing against pointless action.
I was midway through watching your original video, when it conked out. Thank you so much for your integrity to retract this video and repost. These are complicated topics, and we appreciate your acumen in researching and conveying these to us, whether or not they concern Einstein or quantum mechanics.
I can't help but notice how we in the West claim good economies while greening. 😂 While being wildly dependent on the developing world for almost all goods. So we are actually responsible for the carbon of the developing world. That gives us the ability to have a service economy while downplaying our impact on co2. It truly comes across as disingenuous.
To further add injury hammer third world countries with "your emission bad" (even if they dont have the highest emissions) that way they get mixed signals on wether they are allowed to industrialize or not lol.
So we are actually responsible for the carbon of the developing world.
They are responsible for their own actions.
@bastiaan7777777 actually when you think about it. The companies are Western with a clear goal of suppling that market. Consumption in emerging markets is the growth potential. The clear goal is to take advantage of cheap labor and supply the West. Of course, they'll use this opportunity to grow. It's not helpful, however, to pretend it's not our mess. It is!!!
@@Memegorillavr You are pretty ignorant if you think that those countries produce exclusively for the west. Also, why deny those countries their wealth coming from said productions?
@bastiaan7777777 The base of profitability lies in the West. The growth prospects are emerging.
That is one thing that "separates men from boys", or scientists from talking heads: Scientists acknowledge error. I'm glad I'm subscribed.
Space Scientists are just a Klan of Speculative Globeheads.
CONGRATULATIONS! You won a "Context' box from the purveyors of pure truth.
The countries that have reduced their GHG emissions have done so by closing their carbon intensive industrial base and farming the work out to developing nations. So really they have not prospered from reducing these emissions. They have just moved them to another continent. Excellent content as always.
Most European countries closed their coal mines and heavy industries over 40 years ago already though, much of the recent carbon reduction is from replacing coal with gas & renewables.
@@rey_nemaattoriand, as OP says, offshoring & selling off carbon emission rights.
They have not reduced their emissions either, they have just sent them to another country.
not true, draconian regulations on automobiles and nuclear power in France counts for a great chunk of the reduction.
@@backintimealwyn5736 draconian regulations? Like how people used to drive small European shitboxes which averaged 1:15 (L:km) and now drive big SUV’s averaging 1:10?
And France always had nuclear, and the rest of Europe is downsizing / closing nuclear power plants and installing wood burning plants that use Canadian forests to make pellets…
Europe has been dumping their filthy mfg’s overseas since the 1970’s. Western European countries have been changing into management states in stead of mfg states. So on paper they pollute less… and the factories that DO pollute can buy carbon emission offset rights (paper again) so that they sell off their pollution to, for instance, Tesla factories in the US.
Smoke and mirrors.
We know how horrible climate change is. When all the wealthy fly their personal jets to every meeting, instead of doing virtual meetings. When they talk about the rapid rise of the oceans, then buy beach front property. When they shift manufacturing out of countries with good waste control measures. To countries with horrible waste control measures. Maybe we could get another celebrity to tells us how we all need to do our part. Right before they jet out to their private yacht.
Always great when someone acknowledges an error. This is why I'm glad I'm subscribed.
what is the error? if we never hit net zero, humanity will go extinct.
@@opensocietyenjoyerthe only way to hit "net zero" is if we go extinct.
@@ScottBFree obviously wrong
@@opensocietyenjoyer LMAO you're not serious
or if we change our behavior in a way such that CO2 levels fall. it's that easy@@ScottBFree
Hi, I'm a tree!
Some fun fact: there's an expression in Japanese which sounds like "ki ni naru" and is written 気になる. It means:
1. to weigh on one's mind; to bother one; to worry about; to be concerned about; to care about; to feel uneasy; to be anxious
2. to be interested (in); to be curious (about); to wonder (about); to catch one's eye
3. to feel like (doing); to feel inclined to; to bring oneself to (do)
But if you write it like 木になる, it has the same pronunciation, but it means "to become a tree" (or "I become a tree" as Japanese verbs don't have inflections for person).
Combining these, you can say "ki ni natta" and it will mean "I got interested in" or "I became a tree" depending on the context (in speech) or depending on how you write it.
@2moonplanet
Okay bro. 👍🏾
This is the integrity we need. Thanks for your hard work
With all due respect, but how about supporting the politicians that are trying to achieve this rather than a sympathetic, intelligent bystander who can just move on with her life after making this video? I come from the Netherlands, the country of Timmermans, the architect of the Green Deal. He is getting a lot of nasty reactions.
That's because the decisions of politicians affect everyone while opponents of climate change will never watch this video resulting in a like minded echo chamber. Just as there are like minded echo chambers advocating the total opposite in other RUclips channels.
We are all shielded from that, contrary to the politicians that have to take the bullets (sometimes literally, see the recent Ecuadorian elections).
What is this net zero everyone keeps on talking about and is it better than coke zero?
or sugar free steroids?
It is a tax accounting trick - get your carbon credits for manufacturing in China but that’ll never get the atmosphere carbon dumping down. It is a fraud.
Net Zero is a is terribly slow internet browser although slightly better then AOL.
@@SmokeyWire56it was free though, I used to use it for online gaming with PS2, those were dark days
@@ThatOpalGuy literally nothing is better than that.
I appreciate your call for carbon capture, I am only worried about the insane amount of energy that will cost and whether that energy couldn't better be used for other purposes.
Carbon capture is a complete fantasy, or even a scam.
cripto-mining seems to be a a better way to use it.
I'm not able to prove it, but i suspect, it would be in most cases much cheaper to stop CO2 Emission than to capture it later... but you can sell Carbon capture as a hope, and a reason, not to stop emitions right no... we can just go on... sad, but this is the way, most humans are.
@crypto anything sucks huge amounts of power and releases heat.
Of course, if scientists and engineers are interested in doing this then they will develop a way to carry this process out efficiently. Or else it would've been impractical to make it work at a large scale.
How much of the reduction of CO2 from Europe stems from the fact that many industries has been outsourced to China though? It's easy to claim economic growth in Europe if it's because we displaced it to China instead.
Much easier to have confidence in a communicator that can admit to their mistakes and correct them. Bit of a novelty in the climate "debate"! I felt a bit more optimistic after watching the video.
Now she can delete this one too and admit she was wrong about EU being 2.3 above pre-industrial in 2022 because they are two different things. Then she can remove the lie that we can continue "decarbonising" without hurting prosperity because we improved efficiency once. Like eating less, that does not work indefinitely.
@@tuberroot1112 sorry, accusing someone of lying when they have just demonstrated a willingness to admit and correct errors is the sort of adversarial partisan rhetoric that indicates further discussion will be unproductive. If you want to show she was wrong, give references to your data sources and present your argument in a more moderate manner that suggests that you are willing to consider counter-arguments to your position.
@@tuberroot1112 why so but hurt?
@brodude7194 I don't think he was butthurt, he just doesn't think it possible to have a productive discussion based on that initial reply.
@@DJRonnieG well yes I do, it's the only conclusion left to a sane person
There's worse ways to spend 18 minutes than watching Sabine present a video again.
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏
🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏
🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏
❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
can you give an example? at this point she doesn't even hide her anti climate protection agenda
@@opensocietyenjoyer Spending that much time arguing with you would be worse.
@@CAThompson best comment I read this day 👍
@@opensocietyenjoyer She uses facts to back her statements and you espouse a dumba55 ad hominem to counter her scientific facts.
Permit me to use a similar troupe you employ by quoting a very wise rabbit: "What a maroon! What an ignoramus!"
Also, some nations are fudging the numbers. For example, Canda doesn't count emissions from bushfires as it isn't manmade however they count the carbon absorbed by trees (which isnt manmade).
@grindupBakeroh? I thought it was us Quebecers? 😂❤
Lol, you think they aren't manmade.
Another point is that carbon removed by trees is only temporarily removed. Eventually, the tree dies and rots (or lately, burns) which liberates the carbon again.
Thanks. You and your team are modern day information heroes.
Sabine, thank you. I really enjoy your communication of science.
I am curious though specifically about the reduction in greenhouse emissions in Europe and North America, why is no mention ever made of their transfer of poluting industries specifically to China and other parts of the world? How much of the coal powered electricity genration around the world goes to produce goods for Western consumption?
SShhhhh, the media doesn't want to talk about that because then China wouldn't be gaining an economic advantage over us.
Who exactly is forcing the CCP to pollute as much as it is? It CHOOSES to operate dirty industries.
Virtue signaling. Australia ships coal to China, and doesn't count that in their country's emissions.
There is mention. You probably didn't notice. I knew of this transfer decades ago. China was building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per week and both China and India vowed to raise the standard of living of their people by burning coal at large scales.
@@solconcordia4315 There were no mentioning of Europe and US deliberately moving "dirty" production to China and other developing countries still comsuming major part of products from these factories. Moreover there was attempt of scam with carbon tax wich for some reason should pay factories and not consumers of the goods :) Let it be consumers and then they will be more cafull with chosing what to buy and producers will be competing in lessening emissions :)
I'm glad you focused on eco-system restoration at the end. I've long thought that if we took a look at building up new ecosystems, and revitalizing old ones, much of the carbon capture would start to take care of itself. I also think new strategies like regenerative agriculture need to be looked at more seriously. If we start treating our farms like ecosystems we'd likely environments flourish.
I understand why institutions focus on carbon dioxide, as it is easily quantifiable. However, I fear an overfocus on just the molecules, rather than the cycles and ecosystems in which those molecules are involved, misses the forest for the trees. Here's to focusing on building reslience through ecosystems!
Yes, let’s not forget that climate change is just one part of the problem. We can live in a perfectly net-zero world while still destroying the Amazon and ravaging seabeds.
Your not wrong... But also, we have in just a century liberated millennia worth of sunk carbon.
Nature will not simply catch up without our application of technology, which is what has brought us to this point.
But don't despair the numbers work out, we can undo what we have done.
Life isn't the only way to build co2 into HC chains for permanent storage...
That is actually how climate cooling project Justdiggit works. It has proven it can contain desert land, preventing them from growing, and even reclaim desert areas by making sure rain stays at the same place instead of flushing away. The net result is that new vegetation grows at areas where there was previously none.
The amounts of CO2 we are emitting per year far exceeds the amount that biology can absorb. That is the problem.
@@alanjenkins1508But it starts to help when net-zero is reached.
Hi Sabine, I´m a Californian Hyperion tree celebrating that finally a youtuber says hello to us 🌳🌲
Taking down a video because of a prior mistake, and correcting that mistake in a followup video despite being punished by the algorithm deserves respect.
Burning trees and capturing the carbon from it is an idea I haven't heard talked about before, but you are right in that it's the released carbon, not the combustion that's the problem, and that burning fossil fuels is releasing excess carbon while burning trees would be burning non-excess carbon. Although I am sure things are more complicated that the simplistic explanation I have here.
Just for awareness there is research with a diffrent solution to the climate change with experimentally verified results the gist of it can be found here ruclips.net/video/tdhfuu5lPNM/видео.html or search climate error on youtube
carbon is not a problem, it only has benefits - more harvests, more trees and plants, deserts receding and green cools the planet again...
@@MarcoVermeij excess carbon is actually harmful to plants. There has been studies done where the CO2 content in the air is increased (inside a controlled environment) and plants actually grew less. I also believe there were models created based on the data.
Now I don't remember the specific reference off the top of my, but I am sure if you do some googling you'll find it has long as you don't stick with your bias.
Also, Venus proves excess CO2 can be very bad. CO2 in Venus' atmosphere is believed to contribute heavily to why Venus is a lot hotter than it should be.
Not a tree but I just wanted to say hey anyway. Good to learn the difference between carbon capture and carbon removal. Thanks for reuploading with the fix. Big hug to you
" ..and the only thing we can do to get to net zero, is to actively remove carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.."
if only there was an organism that would eat CO2 and poop out something good for everyone, like Oxygen. And also be solar powered. And best of all, if it could become food for animals and even people. oh oh oh, and make it so that it can live on land AND water. HOW awesome would an organism like that be!!!
Plant's enter chat
:)
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏
🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏
🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏
❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
@@MR-backupthe problem is, they have always do that, at the rate they have always done that, and only that "waste" which did not decay back into the carbon cycle was sunk carbon.
If you account for all the time and how very little amount of life ended up as hc chains, that we then burnt for (~20% of the) energy content... You will notice the math is that direct photons via PV panels are about 4 orders of magnitude more efficient.
Coupled with the cosmically tragic rate that we have been burning those handy HC chains, and you'll see that simply stopping the combustion, IE: net zero. Won't come close to re-sequestering that which we've liberated.
We will need to over produce via renewables (which is actually quite easy), and then deploy the majority of that towards artificial sequestration.
This gets us back to a pre industrial carbon cycle in balance, maybe. And at the end so much excess energy that space might be a good place to spend it by lifting some mass out of our gravity well...
@@MR-backupIt is covered under Biochar😉 Although its impact is not fully understood and the produced amount is used again, instead of being buried in the leftover pits of lignite mining.
We also could refill the Ruhrpott, limiting the forever costs.
I'm not sure I capture the difference between the two. Technically identical but used in a different way?
Just saw it, but I'll let it run in the background anyways, for the algorithm.
Haha. I watched a good portion of the other one. Can I get a refund Sabine?? Merci
Thanks, much appreciated.
I watched the first video and I’ll watch this one too. Error and rectification is an integral part of science.
The resistance to CCS almost reminds me of the Gatorade scene from idiocracy.
"Fossil fuels and combustion is bad!"
"Yes, because they release carbon into the atmosphere."
"So what should we do about it."
"We should capture the carbon so it's not released into the atmosphere."
"No, that's a bad idea."
"What? Why?"
"Cause that would not reduce the use of fossil fuels."
"But why would that be a problem if we capture the carbon?"
"Because fossil fuels are bad!"
"Yes, because they..."
Sigh.
Carbon is not bad, carbon is life. Period.
Capturing carbon requires much more than fossil fuel
See, this is why I trust your word over the countless others on youtube who talk about similar topics. Not many are willing to admit and fix their mistakes and accept that there will be a downside in views as a result of it. Although I think with you, people, like myself, will rewatch it to see the ammended version.
Another great contributor is "Just have a think". He focuses solely on climate issues and takes the science really seriously as well.
In 2023 planet earth breached 1.5C ~100 times compared to the 1880 baseline or 1.7C when compared to the 1750 baseline (whichever is more convenient). The numbers the IPCC reports are so insanely conservative.
Why aren't we talking about feedbacks and tipping points (AMOC, antarctic and arctic sea ice loss, desertification of boreal forests and so on). Do people know we've lost 80% of the volume of Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years?
What about biodiversity loss (70-86% reductions in insect populations over the last 50 years etc)? Poisoning of oceans, rivers, lakes and seas with toxic chemicals? The poisoning and overheating of oceans has reduced the ocean Ph to ~.79-.80 acidic enough to dissolve calcium carbonate shells of plankton and other sea creatures (hence why we've seen 50% reduction in their presence over the last 50 years in addition to many other species including coral reefs). All of these factors are symptoms of human population overshoot... the human species' innate need to dominate and destroy every ecosystem it comes into contact with. When will we have enough? And when will we stop having Carbon tunnel vision?
The video is improved, but it is not actually fixed. Unfortunately, Sabine did not crunch the numbers, so she mistakenly believes that carbon dioxide is taken up only "slowly" from the atmosphere by natural processes, and that if we achieve net zero the levels will just "slightly decrease." In fact, if we achieved net zero, the atmospheric CO2 level would be falling even faster (slightly faster) than it is now rising.
Averaged over the last 10 years, the atmospheric CO2 level rose only 2.45 ppmv per year (= 0.603% per year). The reason I say "only" is that human CO2 emissions averaged more than 5 ppmv per year over that same period! The reason for the large difference is that natural CO2 removal mechanisms (mainly terrestrial greening and ocean uptake) are removing more than 2.5 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere per year.
So if we were to achieve "net zero" today, the atmospheric CO2 level would not plateau (as many presume), nor would it only "slightly decrease" (as Sabine supposes). Instead, the level would fall rapidly, at an initial rate of about 2.55 ppmv per year (though the rate would decrease as the level declines).
That decrease in CO2 level would quickly (in only 10 to 15 years) cause the current radiative imbalance (0.3±0.1 W/m²) to go negative, at which point global temperatures would presumably be falling, rather than rising.
What's more, natural CO2 removal mechanisms accelerate by 1 ppmv per year for every 40 to 50 ppmv increase in the atmospheric CO2 level. That means if our emissions were to remain at the current rate, the atmospheric CO2 level would rise by only about 100 to 125 ppmv before plateauing, because natural CO2 removals would then equal our current rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
That 100-125 ppmv increase would represent just 1/3 of a "doubling" (log2(533/420)=0.34), compared to the 58.5% of a doubling of CO2 that we've already seen (log2(420/280)=0.585). That would eventually yield perhaps 1/2 °C of warming (compared to about 2/3 of the 1.15°C of warming we've already seen [WMO estimate] which is believed to have been due to CO2).
Inasmuch as the 1.15°C of warming we've already seen (since the late Little Ice Age) has been generally beneficial, there's every reason to believe that another 1/2 °C would also be beneficial, or at least benign.
@@gregelliott1948 wrote, "In 2023 planet earth breached 1.5C ~100 times compared to the 1880 baseline or 1.7C when compared to the 1750 baseline (whichever is more convenient)."
[1 of 10]
The WMO estimates that global average temperature has risen by 1.15 ±0.13 °C since "preindustrial" (late LIA 1800s). To put that into perspective:
● 1°C is the temperature change you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet.
● At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of about 60 miles.
● 1°C is a little less than the hysteresis (a/k/a “dead zone” or “dead band”) in your home thermostat, which is probably 2-3°F. Your home's “constant” indoor temperatures are continually fluctuating that much, and you probably don't even notice it.
● In the American Midwest, farmers could fully compensate for 1°C of additional warming by adjusting planting dates by about six days.
*Note:* Growing ranges for most important crops include climate zones with average temperatures that vary by tens of °C. Major crops like corn, wheat, potatoes and soybeans are produced from Mexico to Canada. Compared to that, 1.15 °C is negligible.
What's more, the warming is disproportionately at chilly high latitudes, where it is unambiguously beneficial.
gregelliott1948 wrote, "The numbers the IPCC reports are so insanely conservative."
[2 of 10]
That's backward. The IPCC is dominated by people working in the climate industry, and their estimates for key climate metrics are generally exaggerated, and their projections for the future are wildly so.
Very well done, Sabine. The very best breakdown produced to date. Planet Wild, I will subscribe to. Very practical.
Tree here. It’s evening now. Sending some O2 your way.
O2 is made in the daytime, CO2 is output in evening. nb "Plants release carbon dioxide at night through a process called respiration. During the day, plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it to create energy through photosynthesis. However, at night, plants continue to respire and release carbon dioxide instead of taking it in" Your talking tree is confused.😁
I have read that even if all emissions were stopped today that temperatures would continue to increase until equilibrium was reached.
@grindupBaker More like 100 years actually, a regular sized lake take 10 years.That means in 2124 all excess heat from our modern solar maximum will have vanished.
Yes and emissions keep rising too.
@@lrvogt1257 They can keep rising how much they want to would still not make sweden the center of the world a tropical paradise anyways.
@@albin4323: That's both true and irrelevant. The equatorial areas will experience an increasing number of extreme and inhospitably hot days and increasing food insecurity leading to social unrest and migrations.
Because of the more extreme waviness of the jet stream, further towards the Arctic could be anything from drought and fires to floods, early or late frosts and invasive species. SEE: "NASA Watching the Land Temperature Bell Curve Heat Up (1950-2020)"
@@lrvogt1257 Solar minimum causes more wawy jetstream than just global boiling, some extreme weather has increased mainly because of the weakening solar cycles since 2007 when modern maximum ended (1914-2008)
Net Zero had a definition around 20 years ago. It was an internet service provider. Then they went out of business when broadband came along. 😁😁
Big remembering!
The company became zero on the net. 😄
I used Net Zero for a short time. It was free and I was a student.
I still get email on NetZero.
@@infinitytoinfinitysquaredb7836yep that’s how they got their name, it was free dial-up internet. A few companies did this. Their dialer app showed a banner ad on top. I had a Mac, so I used ResEdit to change the window type to be resizable, then I could hide the ads 😅
DAC needs a gigantic amount of green energy to operate in a climate-relevant way. For larger DAC plants in planning, we are talking about the world's largest solar plants or even nuclear power plants and then of course the question arises why we need all the resources for carbon negative emissions if we don't even manage to decarbonize the energy sector.
DAC is a distraction because every kWh of renewable energy used for DAC removal displaces that same kWh of energy that could be used to power the grid therefore keeping carbon intensive electricity generation online.
The only way DAC makes sense is if we first decarbonize everything that's not super difficult to decarbonize.
Perhaps spell out the abbreviation the first time.
Yeah, DAC won't work without first doing the simple things. But BECCS and biochar should work. Though thay are limited to the amount of biomass we can get. BECCS also partially solves the energy issue. Maybe a worthwhile shot?
I agree that carbon capture (DAC or otherwise) isn’t an excuse for continuing to burn fossil carbon. But I’m good with doing early research and experiments on it now, so we can apply it once we have decarbonized the energy system and can build out surplus clean energy.
I just noted that you've passed 1M subsribers.
congrats ! :))
It's quite bizarre that Sabine talks about China's emissions without mentioning that in per capita emissions, China is the 15th polluter, behind Canada, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Japan, among others. Also forgetting that China is today the so-called factory of the world, therefore, if we consider the consumption of Chinese products in these other countries, this attribution of blame becomes even more discrepant.
Absolutely right, but don't blame Bee here, it's not the topic of this not even 20minutes lasting vid.
China has no environmental laws that need to be obeyed and they do not care about nature. They pollute to an insane degree, both their own country and the atmosphere. Every climate change agreement china has ever been part of, they never made any contribution to it.
Bottom line, everything that is currently being produced in china could be produced for less co2 and less pollution in other countries. So yes, we can absolutely blame china for the pollution it causes, because they have never made any move to reduce it.
That NSO definition is agony to read. I am envious of you putting in the work to extract the sense it has.
Hey Sabine, I want to pinpoint out that another mistake that environmentalist groups make is opposing nuclear power. It's the cleanest and safest energy source that we could have, but is phrased as 'dangerous' by infamous accidents. Talking about that, there were 3 major accidentes in history between the more 100 nuclear power plants around the world.
Many enviromental groups and the IPCC support nuclear power.
Most people do not want them standing in their backyard.
There are plenty of reasons to not like nuclear but at this point I don't object in principle. The problem is that they are very expensive , take very long to install and they tend to lose vast amounts of money.
@@lrvogt1257 Not in China or in 80s France. It is a matter of will
@@seba24000 : French nukes are going bankrupt. China is a command economy. They don't have to worry about profit margins.
@@lrvogt1257 All that is because we've made it that way. We could also just change our minds.
Sabine you sweet summer child. Our overlords are not really concerned about climate change, but rather about severely reducing humanity's future.
@viktorfunk1819 History shows us that a society that lives in fear of the security of it's future can be easily controlled. The more esoteric and obscure the fears can be, the more easily they can be confused and accept irrational fears and even more irrational solutions to their invisible dangers. The "overlords" know that they are safe behind their closed perimeters.
8:36 "So we've seen it's possible to decarbonize even large economies without sacrificing prosperity."
Really? Can you elaborate on that?
I think she meant USA and Europe which she discussed in the preceding 2 minutes. However a) Not sure the inhabitants would agree about prosperity b) although CO2 reduced, its nowhere near net zero.
I would actually argue that most of China's curve belongs to the countries that are ordering product from there. We essentially only relocated our manufacturing to China. If we didn't do that and all of our manufacturing stayed in the USA and Europe, China would not have seen as big of a spike, but we would have been much bigger.
Basically we destroying our own industry and economies to make a communist country very rich...
A socialist CO2 molecule does not have a greenhouse gas effect.
so true!
China and India are unhelpful partners on this sinking ship called Earth. The West woke up to the fact that our ship was sinking fast due to our forebears and our actions. Then China and India came along and viewed to attain economic justice by emitting their fair share of greenhouse gases to achieve the West's standard of living. That tantamounts to bailing water onto their side of this ship as the West bails hard the water sinking all of us, out of this ship.
Ring around the Rosie,
Pockets full of posies,
Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.
Exactly. It's like outsourcing our swear-jar.
It isn't supposed to be achievable, its supposed to be a control mechanism.
Can you explain exactly how? I don't understand how carbon removal technologies will be used to control us.
@@time3735 I feel y ou lack the attention span to appreciate the scope of what's happening. It's not something that would just take a single tik tok video to convince y ou.
@@guillermoelnino That's a very good way to divert the question and make up a totally different reason about attention and tiktok. If it is conspiracies which most tiktok users fall for, then sure I don't believe it. If it's something that's true and you understand it well, then you would have simply explained it but clearly none of you do. And I know you're only here to grift but at least you should have "critical thinking", which you also lack.
@@time3735 I know, I shouldn't coddle y ou. I should just be honest. But watching y ou wallow in y ou r own ignorance is just too funny.
@@guillermoelnino okay? 😂Coddle me? Lmao. What's more funny is how ignorant people themselves love calling others ignorant. Nothing of use to say. What a waste of my time. Of course, stupid grifters.
We are removing a lot of trees here in Australia so that we can build renewable energy farms.
Show me the evidence. I see many wind farms and solar PV farms in South Australia and not a single one was built on ground not already cleared over a century ago for farming.
Brilliant!
The USA Europe and China should be paying billions of dollars per year to South American , Central African and southeast Asian nations to declare all their forests as protected massive CO2 capture facilities. Instead of agriculture and cattle farming, pay people to regenerate the forests and keep them alive and growing.
I’m not sure having a quantifiable goal is helping anymore based on the results so far and the muppets we have in charge.
Also I wonder if the natural processes are going to start to degrade as well as the oceans become more saturated and the forests get cut down or die?
Aw yes. When will "they" cut down all the trees? I mean, how stupid of "them" to just keep cutting and cutting and never replanting. Don't understand why all the trees haven't all been cut down already. What? Do you mean to say there are more trees in continents with active forest products industries then there were 100 years ago? Can't be. This is just lies from shills for the forest products industry. After all, "they" are just too stupid to know that if they didn't replant more than they cut that their most important raw material would disappear. And we all know they are too stupid to realize that. Now you be a good boy and don't use paper or wood. Save a tree, y'know.
Yes they will start to degrade. Deserts do not store a lot of carbon.
♉♉♉♉♉
What are you talking about? We’re experiencing Global Greening, it’s observable from the Space Station. Greenhouse Gases are turning the world more green.
I think you are not taking into account the legislation that has passed in the US in the last couple of years. The Chips and Science Act, the Infrastructure Bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act contain massive incentives for GHG reduction and development of strategic clean manufacturing in the US. I agree that natural carbon sinks will degrade to a certain extent, but I don't think it will be enough different to worry about.
Thank you for your always informative videos. And thank you for trying to do your own small part. You are not alone.
The EU switched from having heavy industry to a services based economy and it outsourced its carbon emissions processes to somewhere else.
"Somewhere else" with weak environmental regulations is likely, then to be shipped long distances. It's lunacy.
And that's only part of the hypocrisy.
Everything in the research seems to indicate that we would be best off by trying to adapt to temperature changes, instead of trying to centrally plan the entire global economy into producing just the right amount of greenhouse gases.
It's also virtually impossible for 0.042% of our atmosphere (420ppm) to have any measurable impact on global temperatures. The other 99.958% of the atmosphere (999580ppm) will let the heat back out.
That's overall false argument. The pigment in your paint is a small percentage, but it can change transparency properties of it drastically. And then paint your car white or black and see which is hotter under the sun.
Carbon dioxide removal could be something useful to do with excess electric power. In Australia, excess solar panels mean that power prices are zero while sun is shining.
The construction of solar panels has a cost which generally offsets the benefits you'd get from their existence in the first place. There's also not enough resources to construct enough solar panels to generate enough power to solve any real issues.
@@rusty6172power that is generated must be immediately used or store. At certain times a day, especially when using green energy, there is a surplus. It could be used to generate sodium hydroxide, which can be used to remove CO2 instead of being wasted. That was my point
@@stevenpace892 So how much you pay for electricity in Australia ? In Canada it has never been more expensive
@@dmitripogosian5084 it is expensive except when sun is shining. Government incentives cause so many solar panel installations that there is excess power. Then the coal electric plants started shutting down because they were no longer economical, causing prices to soar! Unlike North America, Australia has no significant hydro power.
@@dmitripogosian5084 it is expensive except when sun is shining. Government incentives cause so many solar panel installations that there is excess power. Then the coal electric plants started shutting down because they were no longer economical, causing prices to soar! Unlike North America, Australia has no significant hydro power.
As far as I know "Net Zero" is just the same as the expression "Carbon Neutral" which used to be in use a lot some time ago. Of course any 'net zero' or 'carbon neutral' condition implies a steady state level of carbon dioxide, without actually defining what this level is, or what level is acceptable.
It does actually... "net zero" makes sense when you take into account the whole life cycle of something.
For instance... A wood panel for a building might have a negative impact if the wood is mulched at the end of it's life and more trees are planted to replace those cut down to produce said panel.
It's not impossible but it's also not feasible that EVERY single industry would plant enough trees to offset their emissions. Therefore we need to have a system that makes it expensive to pollute as an incentive to not do so. At the end of the day all you need is that everyone reduces emissions as much as possible and someone compensates for the remainder.
My point is that with equal rates of output and input there is a steady state CO2 concentration which persists in the atmosphere. This will tend to be close to the level at which carbon neutrality of the whole economy is first achieved. What this level is, would have to be adjusted (reduced) by periods of greater input than output. The main purpose of economy-wide carbon neutrality, is to stop the CO2 level rising any further. There are many other practical problems too, planting trees uses land area and there is an increasing pressure on the use of land because of the growing global food shortage which has been causing a long-term rise in global food commodity prices. Biofuels have caused problems by competing for land use with food production. @@pedromoura1446
Hi Sabine. Thank you for educating me. Thank you for working so hard to try and get to the bottom of all this "global warming" talked about by others. Thank you for trying to put the facts out into public. I am not a tree.
Thanks for correcting your mistake. Appreciate your honesty and your dedication towards spreading good science :)
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about the energy needed for carbon removal from the atmosphere.
Or the energy requirements for the Green New Deal. They have to be more than what "green" energy can provide. And then there's the question of how much ecological destruction we have to do in the name of green energy in places that are out of sight of the voters. And then there's the question of how much of green energy relies on oil based materials to keep weights down on green vehicles. The questions go on and on but we're dealing with a religious movement not science so everything is answered by our having faith in our leaders.
Just to make i clear, I think we should abandon the use of fossil fuels/oil in the long term, or at least the burning it. Obviously not by destroying nature elsewhere. I just don't believe carbon removal from the atmosphere in a substantial amount, so it has an impact on global warming, is feasible...
More than the energy it took to put it there.
The most energy efficient method is to not dig it up and burn it.
@@Tailspin80 That's exactly what I suspect to be true!!!
I see that tree planting and use of timber for construction are listed under Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). I've been in favour of this for 35 years. It's a no brainer really. Why aren't there massive programs for this?
Because over time the wood rots and turns back into CO2. Unless you burry the wood or turn it into charcoal and then burry the charcoal, you're not removing any CO2 long term. Maybe you do for 50 years or so, but sooner or later, the timber would have to be replaced and the old one would be either left to rot or burnt, both of which will turn it into CO2 again.
But if you do burry the wood or charcoal, you're basically just producing coal and storing it back underground, thus doing the opposite of what the industrial evolution caused. In the long term, that's a very correct thing to do.
But currently it still doesn't make any sense to do it today, while there are other people around the planet still digging other coal up and burning it. You get a much bigger bang for the buck if you stop those people digging coal first. If you try to store wood or charcoal underground today, then the entire industry chain involves digging coal to burn it in coal plant to drive an industry that produces charcoal and stores it underground. That would just be a circular effort getting us absolutely nowhere. Energy production from gas/coal/oil has to stop first, and then once we have excess energy, we can use that to produce synthetic gas/coal/oil and store them underground to finally undo this mess.
Also, we first need to get rid of coal economy first, because if you capture CO2 and store it underground as wood or coal, who's to stop existing coal companies from just buying the land, digging it back up and selling it?
I thought the same until i realized that cutting down a tree releases carbon. From machines, transport, machining processes, even soil being disturbed , and unusable waste wood. Secondly, the timber in a building still has a lifespan and eventually it will rot or be demolished and then release carbon. We humans have a tricky problem to solve.
@@pm7294 it depends...all of these are negative impacts that can become minor to null.
If more trees are planted carbon can still be captured faster than it is released(growing trees consume co2 way faster than fully grown ones).
If we add to that the removal of the need for fossil fuels the machines will not release as much co2 and there's techniques that diminish the soil disturbances, Etc...
The problem is that we need to have combined approach to almost everything is not just a matter of changing one thing and solving all our problems.
China did this over the past few decades but now they are cutting these trees down enmasse to make way for more farmland.
@@pm7294 It is a "zero sum game". First the carbon is fixed in the wood during the growth of the tree, thus extracting it from the atmosphere. Then, during the process of degradation, ie, rotting, the carbon is released.
You talk about a possible decoupling between economy and energy, but if greenhouse gas emissions have decreased in Europe and the United States it is because these countries are deindustrializing. And if GDP increases it is thanks to debt. In reality there is no decoupling between economy and energy. What we no longer produce by polluting we import from countries which continue to generate greenhouse gases.
Like Germany shutting nuclear power just made fossil fuel usage shot up. Could we introduce reason into this process?
Fossil fuel use is decreasing in Germany for many years.
What if it's not about reason, but it's about feeling morally smug for masses and control for elites?
@hewdelfewijfe I know and I told you. But some politicians wanted to follow their nuclear dream and sabotaged the change to renewables.
Offshoring the stuff we make and then importing the embedded carbon is where we are in the West. Until we embrace nuclear technologies I can’t see us reaching net zero for many decades to come.
It's clear from this video that we, as a species, are dealing with an over-abundance, an epidemic you could say, of things that are not Kermit the Frog.
A plethora, which is too much of it.
Sounds biased.
@@ronnetgrazer362 there's a lot of not-Kermit the Frog that's causing problems, there's no bias in saying so.
I love your videos Sabine. You hit the nail on the head with confusion over carbon removal and carbon capture being confused by many people, in fact there are so many problems with nomenclature in the whole climate change field, I guess because it is a "new" field of interest. From the components of a domestic PV system (inverter now means something so different and more complex to what it did 10 years ago), to the many terms and acronyms used on a bigger scale.
I think another area of poor understanding is the magnitude of effectiveness of different things we can do ourselves. I think many people believe installing PV is the best low carbon decision for their domestic heating, which turns out to be very wrong. I had a house largely heated by fossil fuels (methane) and I switched to a heat pump and a renewables tariff. After six months I did a fairly detailed calculation of the CO2 emissions from both setups and was quite astonished that they had fallen by 97%. I had done it as fairly as possible taking into account the renewable energy mix of my supplier and their lifetime carbon intensities. This reduction translates to a 10 tonne/y reduction in CO2 emissions, for context this would be equivalent to 10 transatlantic flights per year (not that I fly anymore!). Or about 6 times the emissions from a typical (ICE) car driven a typical number of miles per year.
In the above calculation I also had changed and inefficient gas cooker for an electric one. I calculated that a more typical house would save 95% of its CO2 emissions, still a colossal change.
I am glad to give Dr. Hossenfelder credit for her courage to speak up against crazy environmentalism. She has to KNOW the elites will push back against her if she seeks university employment.
This is even MORE reason to support her online.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
It's not impossible. We achieved Net Zero before. It was called the Dark Ages and the average life expectancy was 28.
That's what they want.
Peasants in the fields living in cold water mud huts eating cold food and dying in their 20's.
They live in the castles.
👍🏼💪🏼
You dozy animals are not fit to comment.
What bullshit… it is possible to reduce emissions massively.
Many people already achieved it by 70-80%, and they are still in a good shape…
Politicians and the rich fly in 25 seater personal jets, eat $40,000 a plate meals, then fly back home and tell us to do more for the environment.
In other words you think smoking is good for you, since some doctors smoke....
There is nothing cooler than teaching plebs on saving the planet from chartered jet or benefits of diversity from safety of gated community...
"The rich" being the main problem here.
In almost every country, the wealthiest 5-10% of households cause more total emissions (and in some cases FAR more) than the bottom 50%.
This is one reason why a decently implemented CO2 tax (so a CO2 tax where every citizen is paid back the average amount) is very effective.
It puts a price tag on emissions and rewards those who make eco-friendly choices (without even requiring them to know that it's eco-friendly!), while at the same time helping low incomes rather than making things even harder for them.
For a millionaire, this for example puts a higher price tag on private flights or owning many heated mansions. This leads to some direct reduction, and to some redistribution. Parts of that redistribution also end up in the state's budget again (poorer people buy more => pay more sales tax) and can be invested to speed up the transition to low carbon energy and increasing energy efficiency (like building insulation standards).
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N This one that you suggest look like something intended to hollow up medium class. Bottom of society would indeed get even a minor cash handout. Top 1% would pay, but wouldn't change their behavior. The medium class and especially lower medium class would be priced out.
Are you some part of those Davos champagne socialists? Or are you a Marxist who tries to speed up revolution by causing social collapse?
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450That depends on the structure of the taxes. It can be easily done with no disadvantage to the middle class.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.
Sabine is one of the best, if not the best, science educators I know about.
Nah climate science is pseudoscience like 50% of all sciences. Most scientists don't even understand causality. Sabine is one of them.
For instance: The economy didn't grew 61%. GDP did but doesn't include for instance inflation. If GDP has risen slower than inflation your economy is shrinking.
Also Chinese numbers of GHG per produced good should not be trusted. CCCP numbers have been controversial for years.
It's only the chinese 'numbers' that have come down. The world change is marginal which doesn't add up too.
Anyway green deals hurt the economy as you can see in Germany. It's in the numbers of spending power too. Big problem of less aerosols from fossil fuels is that it will not block sunlight which leads to more global warming. It's a stalemate position. Best thing you can do is use loads more seawater and build so can handle climate change. Check Judith Curry.
I loved the look on your face in an old video when you asked the climate change modeling expert what happened when they modeled the point of no return global warming and the climatologist said we never tried to model it.
Plenty of evidence that the natural world has negative feedback loops that keep things in relative balance. In short the idea of a “point of no return” is contradicted by hundreds of millions of years of data.
@@sirrathersplendid4825negative feedback curves nicht weiter as follows: more CO2, it gets warmer, Vegetation spreads further, especially in northern regions were there is sufficient landmass, vegetation takes up CO2 (creating wood mass), this CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere. Less CO2 is in the atmosphere, the heat decreases, ...
@@xheerio - It’s a many-body problem. The biggest factors are the oceans and water-vapour in the 🌧, which is by far the most important greenhouse gas.
@@xheerioyes. Plus 2 more negative feedback loops … most importantly, CO2 causes accelerated vegetation growth & ability to survive more arid climates. Secondly, all precipitation originates from evaporation. By increasing evaporation through higher temperatures, this increases the rate of precipitation which also increases vegetation growth rates. Plant hydrocarbons are 99% made from water and CO2.
Sabine’s stunned look reaction regarding no simulations were attempted to model the Global Warming “tipping point”, was an obvious reaction to realizing the global warming fear narrative was not science based, contrary to the marketing propaganda.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Clouds are a MAJOR negative feedback loop that everyone ignores. Higher temperature => more evaporation => more clouds => more reflected sunlight (albedo) => lower temperature.
I like Sabine and her content a lot. Unlike a million other female content creators she doesn't worry about what lipstick she is wearing, how perfect her hair is or apparently puts much thought into what she is wearing. i.e. Sabine's has her priorities right: what's between her and our ears. As a female who unintentionally often looks like I have been dragged through a hedge, I really value a high profile youtuber promoting thought and science over the facade of exaggerated social presentation. Bye the way in Scotland Crabbit means grumpy. I tried my best not to be grumpy here. Thanks Sabine
The past 20 years we invested 5 billion € in renewables and reduced fossil fuel consumption with a whopping 1%
What's clear at this point is that no one has a clue to real solutions or the possible consequences of those solutions.
Sure they do. It's not that complicated. The fossil fuel industry has a $4 TRILLION a year stake in keeping the fuel burning and that is having extremely negative consequences. Burning less fuel is the only way to mitigate the damage.
@@lrvogt1257And the consequences of burning less fossil fuels?
@@olibertosoto5470: Less CO2 emissions and slower temperature increases... which is the primary concern now. Freedom from dependence on OPEC+ and the FF companies etc so less ability for them to threaten, coerce and bleed us of cash.
I watched to the end and gave it a like, as I really respect anyone finding errors to correct in honest ways! (Now, you have some videos to do on photons for QM which links directly into entropy - something I find you have fundamentally messed up.)
I may be misremembering, but in a book by Steven Pinker called Rationality, he mentions that to switch to purely solar and wind and meet the 2050 goals, a land the size of Germany needs to be covered with solar and wind every year. By the end, we need more than the size of all of North America to do that. In addition to that, storage technology and deployment is nowhere near sufficient and storage alone would take years to catch up.
Many experts suggest nuclear power to be at least a transitional (if not permanent) power source.
Bioenergy also captures carbon via root deposition. The plant grows above and below ground, but we only harvest the above ground portion. No till agriculture plus deep rooted perennial plants cause carbon soil levels to rise. Forests and pastures are both good at this. Coppiced biomass has the ingredients to do so, but I'm not aware of studies on this.
Hey Sabine, danke für das tolle Video! Könntest du das nächste Video um MOND und Dark matter machen. Da dein Hintergrund in der Suche nach QG liegt, würde Mich deine Meinung sehr interessieren.
Ich stimme zu.
@ConontheBinarian Das ist es, danke!
In case anyone is wondering what the mistake was, this is Sabine's explanation: "I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. [However] carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so...levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.)
While I appreciate the integrity and attempt to be as accurate as possible, she wasn't wrong. If we stopped all anthropogenic emissions overnight, feedback effects mean that, at least for a short while, temperatures will continue to rise. The last bit of emissions will lead to a slight increase in temperature, which in turn leads to a slight change in water vapour partial pressure. This means increased water vapour, which itself is a greenhouse gas, which in turn increases temperature, which will loop until the effect equalises: kind of like how a spring continues to oscillate after it is released.
Other complications include plant leaves thickening with increased CO2, which in turn reduces the carbon take-up from photosynthesis. Well known effect from greenhouses if plants aren't pruned regularly. In short, no-one can really quantify the effect, but we can be pretty confident that this will happen.
Great presentation. Capturing CO2 from the air is great. To explain it to my grandchildren I asked them to spill 250 gram of Smarties in grandmas kitchen and then collect the Smarties. One grandchild, a smart girl, proposed NOT first to spill the Smarties...
To be even more correct, you should spill 400 grams of smarties in one ton of similarly sized pebbles, mix everything carefully and then sort it back out.
@@markotrieste True! but That is too expensive. Grandma is Schwäbisch. She took 1 kg of Basmatie Rice and colored 25 rice grains red. After mixing she spilled all 60000 rice grains over her kitchen. Her grandchildren are still looking for those red rice grains.
She's so right ❤
425 red rice grains among 1,000,000 uncolored rice grains would be more accurate. Good luck with that.
CCS is not a feasible solution...ruclips.net/video/mCnr0HwW28w/видео.html
You have a gift to explain something difficult in understanding easier. Just like Richard Feynman
As Kermit once said/sang "It's not easy being green....." :)
A thought provoking and balanced video. Not taking one side or the other. Just pointing out the current facts. With a bit of humour.
The "sides" here are truth and lies. I think Sabine took the correct "side".
An excellent video. Very balanced. I feel you missed a massive opportunity by not mentioning capture through regenerative grazing techniques with ruminants. It's been proven to be highly effective at increasing soil that can easily capture huge amounts of carbon.
Interesting. Is there any chance you can drop me a link or something I can look up and check that out?
I had a feeling all that had been debunked - more propaganda from the meat producers. Soils can and do regenerate very well without grazing by animals, and vegetarian diets greatly reduce carbon emissions, (typically 50-75% reduction for vegans), water use and land use.
@nicolasgirard2808 it can allow 2-3x as many animals per acre as traditional grass-fed techniques. So, no, it's doable especially if we can utilize more nutrient-poor monocrop lands for it to provide more nutrients for humans.
The problem with this is that these are all temporary solutions. We're not capturing it and storing it away permanently, we're just temporarily storing all the emissions in the soil/grass/trees. As soon as they die and start decomposing, they release it all back, both methane, CO2 and NO. This is a temporary solution to buy us time. And we definitely need those, but we still gotta recognize it's only temporary.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy you are correct with trees but for soil, if it's managed correctly we aren't only removing the soil as in industrial monocrops, we are continually building soil.
I’m downloading and commenting to keep the video share rate climbing like Kermit D. Frog scaling a carbon emissions graph. Thx for your commitment to good science.😊
i just love it how academics, politicians, and others who have little problem with keeping their jobs or paying for their food, accommodation or fuel seem to think that the economies appear to be doing fine.
economies and personal wealth and health is being rapidly destroyed.
Scottie Power looked at CCS for their Longgannet plant. They found that CCS would increase coal consumption by 1/3 and would only remove the additional carbon. In other words it increased their cannibalistic energy (operating energy) increased which would have increased their price per unit for electricity.
*Scottish Power
Well done auto complete
That's why a lot of people say that "Clean Coal" is BS. CCS is capable of being useful, but not when you have a process like coal-fired electricity generation that is already economically marginal. (Which is why all the coal plants in the US will be gone before long.)
@@incognitotorpedo42 "coal-fired electricity generation that is already economically marginal" Huh??? Coal fired plans are the most economical way of producing electricity. Ask the Chinese, they produce 2/3 of electric from that black gold.
A fact often ignored is our economies have been able to sustain themselves only because other countries are producing the goods we need. If everyone starts closing their factories and no one produces anything, things will probably collapse
"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" still works well as decades ago. I don't miss the "lost production" of tetra-ethyl lead gasoline additive to prevent car engine damage.
I won't cry over the "lost production" of chloro- or fluoro- carbons, either.
I can still drive a car and have air-conditioning and refrigeration.
@@solconcordia4315I think what they are getting at is the fact China and India have high emissions relative to the EU because everything is made there. Recycling at an industrial scale still creates carbon pollution, though it is probably better than all new things for a variety of reasons. Ultimately there is an inherent economic problem, because capitalism requires growth to operate. So even if we personally could each be happy with what we have, there is a problem in that none of our societies are built to work in that way.
Who said anything about closing factories and "no one produces anything"?
There has been some discussion here in Canada of a possible project to plant large numbers of trees along the northern fringes of the Boreal Forest in the far north of Canada. They should grow well because it's warmer there now than it was. I hope the plans are generated such that the same variety and distribution of tree species are planted there, so that the same ecosystem is extended further north. (I don't know much about the nutrient content of the soil there. I hope it's suitable.)
Trees grew in those northern latitudes, and on the edge of the Arctic Ocean, about 4000 years ago. Tree stumps are preserved in those areas that have been carbon dated to that period. I wonder what caused such warming back then? Almost as if we are in some sort of earth climate cycling scenario? That's where all the data point to.
@@jimmoses6617 The data points to no such thing.
Southern scandinavia's been planting pineseeds (help reforesting, airplane planting) from pines couple a kilometers more south each year from 70's, because of warming temperatures. The same latitude trees nope. Also, Oaks no longer need much protection for winter (yes, in southern seaboard and some local microclimates there are some old ones).
Canada should probably stop spraying glyphosate in the forests that already exist first.
@@matthewabln6989 why are they doing that?
It's an easy task to reach net zero. Since 10% of the world's population are the consumers of the products and services thatf generate 90% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions, we just have to gather them in the biggest Eat the Richs Festival of the history of mankind. Getting rid of the residual 10% will be 10 times easier. (Heavy Sarcasm (Sorry Sabine I didn't ask if you were part of the 10% we are talking about!))
Happy to help you defy the algorithm for good causes, to save the environment and to cheer you on for doing the right thing scientifically and correcting errors.
Great video - as always!
When mentioning greenhouses gases, no mention was made of water vapour, which is often stated to be around 30 times as significant as carbon dioxide.
Yes but the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases or decreases in line with CO2, thats why CO2 levels are the emphasis on driving climate trends.
Not thirty times, 12500 times.
Where on earth did you get that notion from? @@TheodoreChin-ih7xz
I'd be happy to stand corrected, but I don't believe I've ever seen your figure mentioned before. Where does it come from?@@geoffevans4908
It appears this tiny amount of gas controls the climate, not factors like the sun.
It's like digging a hole and filling it back in at the same time, and changing the definition of what ground level is.
Our local council made a big show of planting 20,000 trees this spring. By autumn, 15,000 were dead because nobody had watered them. Big headlines when they plant them. No headlines when they die.
I do think the CO2 capture if applied to a variety of industries other than energy generation will do the job of filtering the air but I think the effect on temp will be meager at best due to so many other factors in climate processes. And what worries me is that if they don't meet the target, they would then proceed to go so off the wall & this would affect people's living standards.
You’re right the feedbacks are now dominating the temperature increase. You can’t put the planet back the way it was in 1970.
The amount of co2 needed to be removed from the air is simply too much. Like, you can't really imagine the true scale of the industrial operation required to extract co2 from the air, and it's not likely to be possible to build an industrial co2 extractor that actually takes in more co2 than it costs to construct. We're talking about printing carbon piles that are the sizes of cities and then finding a place to store it; an entire ecological disaster on its own... and then that's just to cover 1 year of emissions (~40 billion tonnes of co2 per year at present).
It's trivial to point out that the higher the concentration if the gas you want to remove, the easier it is to remove. If we can't economically extract CO2 from flue gas what's the chances of removing it from the atmosphere, where concentrations are 1000 times lower?
The only method I see working is to use different soil tillage techniques. If you could put an extra one mm of carbon depth in the topsoil of farmland every year that would roughly to stop C02 increase in It's tracks.
My goal with industry is to extract from the ambient air or flue vent just for the sake of filtering the air out. There is no way to extract co2 out of the entire atmosphere & that is why net zero is a pipe dream. So pragmatically I just focus on mitigation rather than utopian targets. What I'm afraid of with the alarmists is that they would not appreciate any improvement; they are too focused on a target that one cannot hit. When I look at the emissions of sulfur oxides in the USA & how they have come down 90% I think that is a tremendous achievement. So if we stick to what is pragmatic we might get something done. I fear the govt taking away vehicles, stoves, furnaces all because they are obscessed with net zero. Add the filtration, there is likely to be improvement.
11:20 very important distinction between CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) and CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage). CCS does not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Thank you so much for making this point, Sabine!
I find the argument that CCS does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere erroneous. It requires far less energy to capture CO2 from combustion exhaust gases than from the atmosphere. Of course, storing 5 billion tons of CO2 per year forever thereafter is not a minor problem. To me nuclear energy remains the answer to the problem, preferably MSNR, currently being tested on a useful scale in China.
Unfortunately progress with MSNR is much slower than I was hoping for 10 years ago. I suspect there are big hurdles.
Climate "Science" is the BIGGEST FIELD OF JUNK SCIENCE. It is designed to DESTROY civilization to a HUGE fascist totalitarian world government controlling peasants. Period.
Of COURSE climate is changing. It ain't us. Try REAL science.
Great video Sabine 👍🏻
Good on you for working to quench the hopes of millions to achieve a brighter future.
Uber rich claim they are net zero because they buy carbon credits.
Since you can’t actually make a difference that way then the whole business is bogus.
That money pays the companies (that do real work) extra money so those that are doing good are able to expand their good actions. If you can't do it, at least you pay others that can. Now if they open a carbon credits credit card, yeah, it's just piling up with no one taking. Fortunately, there are no credit accounts for carbon credits...yet.
@@anthonylosego bull!
Most of those companies fail to provide what they get paid for & all startups have failed.
But that hasn’t got anything to do with the SCAM! You aren’t doing a damn thing to offset the added emissions of private jets or super yachts because there is no physical thing to buy!
I watch John Robson from Nexus. My understanding is the planet needs Co2 for plants to grow and thrive. Co2 levels are lower now than at previous times in history. If Co2 levels were reduced, it could have a detrimental effect on the planet. The whole Net Zero obsession is highly suspicious. It is back to the old adage, who benefits from it. Love your videos.
It is correct, we had much more lush forests with dinosaurs, because of higher level of CO2. It is the food for plants, after all. The questions is whether humans are compatible with lush forest environment :)
Steve, I recommend you stop watching John Robson, because he is filling your head with disinformation. The CO2 level today is twice what it was just 200 years ago. This is a provable scientific fact. There is no disagreement about this except from liars.
Patric Moore whom started Greenpeace has said the same Co2 has been far higher in the past, with very favourable results. Net Zero is as ridiculous, expensive and disasterous to the western world which just pushed the Co2 production towards China, which have no intention of enacting such foolishness. Its well known that many pump Co2 into greenhouses as plants grow spectacularly.
@@dmitripogosian5084 Correct, and there are very many renowned climate and geology scientists who agree. Indeed, CO2 was over 15 times higher back 600million years ago, and has been reducing ever since. It got close to 150 parts per million which would be the death of all life on earth. Greenhouse farmers increase the CO2 inside from the 400 to 1200 parts per million to achieve more effective plant growth.
Sure CO2 is good for plants. But it is a greenhouse gas and is warming the Earth. That is changing climate we are used too. Some places like Australia is drying as a result and water access in populated areas is becoming a problem. Another issue is sea level rise due to melting of glaciers. Eventually, coastal cities will become unlivable and result in mass migration. It is just too simplistic to say CO2 is good and leave it at that.
Another major tipping point is when frozen CH4 clathrates begin to thaw releasing methane plumes off the arctic seabed. 100x more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 within the first 5 years. Growing evidence is showing as the arctic seas warm, the concentration of thawing methane hydrates is rising significantly as well. (Sharpova et al)
Up to 2000 gTonnes of CH4 has the potential of being released.
Plus in the permafrost across Siberia and Canada.
As Mike said: "Plus in the permafrost..." and the leakage from natural gas production.
How many supposedly extinction-level "tipping points" have come and gone since Al Gore and Greta started spewing about them?
BTW, Al seems to have retired on a pile of cash, and Greta seems to have a new mission now. Maybe "climate change" wasn't the existential threat they claimed it was.
Another very interesting and very understandable video, thank you.
It would have been interesting to add something about the cost of the various CCS and C removal methods, and in case of 'artificial' methods (i.e. other than vegetation/biomass) the energy requirements.
And with regard to stabilizing temperatures after net zero, I have doubts about that: the delayed temperature response might be (much) stronger than the effect of the slightly decreased CO2 level.
Ref. Hansen et al. Global Warming in the Pipeline.
Try all you want increased co2 is a good thing
@@clayed3311: CO2 is a very good thing... in the right amount and in the right place. Plant's like the CO2 for growth but PLANTS HATE the excessive heat, drought, fires, and floods the excess CO2 is creating.
I've always found your videos entertaining, educational, and thought provoking. Thank you.
Current concern over atmospheric CO2 makes me wonder what happened in the past to cause increases and decreases in CO2 levels. After all, animals are not the only lifeforms on earth that have evolved over the past 500 million years who both adapt to and affect the environment. Looking at CO2 graphs going back before the carboniferous period, it appears back then the CO2 level was above 2,000 PPM and the earth was humid and tropical. Note that 2,000ppm would be harmful to most plant life today. This period saw the evolution of lignum and cellulose in trees allowing them to grow tall in dense forests (more CO2 storage per acre). As plant life died at that time, the bacteria that could digest this new lignum and cellulose had not yet evolved so the trees could not decay but became the coal we have today. The resistance to decay from lignum and cellulose in trees at that time allowed them to store CO2 from the atmosphere into the ground as coal causing CO2 ppm levels dropped to about where they are today.
This might have continued until today except for the End-Permian Extinction 252 million years ago which was a terrible setback for life on earth wiping out 96% of marine and 70% of terrestrial life (including plants). Once again there was a surge in CO2 levels. Since then, it appears CO2 levels have trended lower reaching a practical minimum of around 200ppm. I say "practical minimum" because whenever CO2 falls to that level in the last 400,000 years or so, 2 things happen: 1) We have an ice age. 2) Plants die off because they are CO2 starved. Once plant life dies off and decays, CO2 levels rise again allowing the earth to heat up and the cycle repeats. This has been the pattern until we apparently (and unintentionally) found a way to break the ice age cycle by releasing CO2 prematurely. The unintended benefits are: 1) Plant life (including food crops) continues flourishing. 2) No ice age. It may turn out our unintended manipulation of CO2 levels has benefits few can comprehend and even fewer will admit.
Don't read too much into my rantings. I'm not educated as a climate-geologist (geoclimatist?). I'm just a semi-retired control systems engineer who has worked in almost every industry and research field from fossil fuel to nuclear, fertilizer to foods, mining to chemicals, and magnets to gravity waves.
8:55 i fail to see how our economies are doing well. I guess if you mean the rich are staying rich then sure but my pay packet is nearly twice what it was ten years ago but disappears about twice as fast as it used to as well. So in real terms i am worse off than i was ten years ago.
Love the way they show powerstations , those towers are cooling tiwers, and the large plumes are steam and water vapour.