Why we're still losing the fight against Methane
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- Carbon dioxide is the main culprit behind climate change. But in second place is methane: a greenhouse gas stronger than CO2, that's wreaking havoc on our planet. Humans are polluting the atmosphere with methane from a whole host of processes - like fossil fuels, farming, trash. But cutting these methane emissions would be a huge (and easy!) win. So why are emissions of this global warming driving greenhouse gas still going up?
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#ClimateChange
twitter: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam
==MORE INFO==
IEA Methane summary www.iea.org/reports/methane-t...
www.iea.org/energy-system/fos...
Review of methane sources and tackling them
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29375...
On accounting for different warming effects www.nature.com/articles/s4161...
Emissions to zero (idealised IPCC hypotheticals) www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/
Food and methane scuppering climate plans
www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
Rice & methane www.dw.com/en/how-to-stop-ric...
dialogue.earth/en/food/chinas...
Satellite observations of methane leaks www.reuters.com/sustainabilit...
Fossil fuel methane emissions going up www.iea.org/reports/global-me...
Why methane levels are going up (natural?) www.euronews.com/green/2023/1...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ima...
acp.copernicus.org/articles/2...
==THANKS==
Ozone hole from Nasa Goddard
Global warming visual from Nasa Climate Change
Power plant demolition from Mountain Top News
Leak footage from IBM Research and Gålfalk et al. (2015)
Greek floods from Weather wev
Wildfire footage from Science At Nasa
Methane map from ESA - European Space Agency 
Наука
oh wow I managed to publish this without a description, which I think might hurt the reach! if you're here watching and valuing this vid, do share it around to make sure more people still learn just how important methane is!
Here in New Zealand, one largest companies - frontera (a dairy cooperative) lobbied so methane is not even included in GHG emissions.
Cow farts?
@@Ozcrazy49 Yes all 1.5billion of them annually
@@ChickpeatheTortie
To be fair, we don't count human farts either.
@@bdnnijs192 Yes you right. I do think that there are far too many of us 'farting' away none stop
@@ChickpeatheTortie
Sarcasm?
Just for a joke google 'vegan fart'.
A large methane source is tropical wetlands, & potentially methane totals from thawing permafrost could be even larger.
I really hate the 'teach the controversy" thing RUclips does, where anyone who mentions climate change gets the 'context' box and presumably the video deprioritized, instead of actually fighting misinformation.
How do you decide what is genuine information and what isn't? Is it really the bureaucratic stamp of approval? WHY do you want to give youtube that power? They shouldn't do ANYTHING.
Glad you mentioned rice in the methane conversation. A fact that hasn't reached the general public yet. Rice cultivation is also a source of nitrous oxide (N2O), an even more potent GHG which stays in the atmosphere for about 121 years (vs 12 for methane). There are solutions to reduce GHG emissions from rice cultivation in the scientific literature but they remain difficult to implement in the real world. Thank you for work Adam!
Anhyrdrous ammonia is the most potent GHG and ozone destroyer of all. NH3 rockets up into the troposphere. So they blamed CFCs, which are 20x heavier than air and kept tightly sealed against leaks, *because anhydrous ammonia is used by the megaton in agriculture.* 😂🎉Stufidö!
Rice as an industry emits more than beef and on a warming planet the emissions from rice is supposed to double.
Replacing meat, also has to replace the whole animal, that we use all of. Adam saying eat less meat or dairy is one of the best ways etc, excludes having to grow a replacement for leather, wool, gelatine, pet food, fats. All these things need to be replaced as well as the calories of the meat, from a grown source.
Saying we can eat less meat will achieve anything positive environmentally is incorrect and measuring rice against meat on a weight basis and not a nutritional or calorie basis has a glaring flaw. Any crop food of 4 kilograms or 4 kilograms of meat with the fat still on the crop food is going to have less emissions, as it should, but it doesn't mean it is better, just that per weight a 4 kg seasonal crop food took less to grow, but we also get less overall because they other stuff then needs to be grown, like gelatine to hold toilet paper together, lumping all the emissions onto the meat part and then saying "crop food is better" but it's by weight, is to me, deception being played on the general public.
@antonyjh1234 I'm willing to bet the people working on this are aware of your points. Your argument is similar to people who were asking about volcanoes and sun cycles as if this might have been something that scientists might not have taken into account. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying if YOU have this information, they do also. The part about misleading the public. No. That's straight up wrong. 😁
Cows not only produce methane from their burps the manure they produce generates not only methane but also nitrous oxide.
Alternatives already exist for all of those byproducts that you listed. Leather Etc.
(permafrost and soils ... bubble bubble)
Bubble, bubble, we’re all in trouble.
We can carbon date the souce of methane, from rice fields (in active circulation), permafrost (
I think maybe you should talk about how methane breaks down in the atmosphere. It doesn't just disappear. It loses a hydrogen atom to create Hydrochloric acid (e.g., acid rain). The Methyl group that's left is highly reactive and while I haven't found a description of the reaction yet, I suspect the unbalanced hydrogens are responsible for the Ozone production while the leftover carbon becomes carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. If the volume of Methane in the atmosphere exceeds a certain amount, it's lifespan increases as there is not enough Chlorine in the atmosphere to breakoff that first hydrogen.
That's a good contribution. Yes, I think this topic is too simplified by climate Adam.
Electric discharges in the atmosphere speed up the process
no sponsors - that's admirable.
Almost 50k, congrats in advance, you are doing great.
So my local Enivonment Protection Authority gave the go ahead for a company to run their gas processing plant until 2070. Other climate activists and I put in an objection to this and I had managed to get a meeting with the Appeals Convienner in an attempt to get the climate change minister to reject this conclusion. The treatment of Methane in the EPA report was my major contention. They used the 25x worse than CO2 number throughout the report for a project that will run until 2070, which is absurd.
In what country do you reside?
@@chinookvalley (Western) Australia. There is a funny (sad) Juice Media video on our situation.
Methane is CH4. One molecule of methane produces one molecule of CO2 and three molecules of water which they say we need. Then caiming methane is "25x worse than CO2" is ANTI-SCIENCE. Where are those 97% of geniuses? _They're cashing their royalty checks!_ 😂🎉Stufidö!
Po$$ibly, your objection mi$$ed $ome minor detail$. 😁
That's when you start rioting
5:20 That turned out to not have much net benefit with seaweed, latest estimates showed are far lower than you stated, almost the exact inverse, since cows typically spend in pasture rather than feedlot especially in the Australian study, when you take that into effect it's around a 2.8% reduction.
Thanks for sharing. Important to note that (if this is what you're referring to!) the result was 28% not 2.8% www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/13/seaweed-cow-feed-trial-fails-methane-reduction-australia
The jury is definitely still out and it seems that the researchers still reckon far higher long term reductions are possible. Hence my note about more experiments are needed to see long term effects!
@ClimateAdam 28% accounts for the methane count without taking into consideration that the cows would have been alive for longer while emitting methane, so when considering this, it's 19%, and given that the cows are in fedlots only 12%-15% of the time the result is around 2.8%. All the figures are in the Guardian article you linked, 2.8% is worked out by 19% * 0.15 (15%), given that the cows are spending most of their time out on pasture. This is not even getting into the CO2e of harvesting and transportation of a tropical seaweed. Seaweed for cows is a greenwashing cover strategy by animal agri.
I can't afford to eat beef anymore, haven't been able to afford lamb for a decade now. It's not really a choice on my part though.
I can buy large beef rump caps for 12 a kilo, around 4 or so kilo I age it by keeping in the fridge uncovered 2-4 weeks at 2-3 degrees with nothing else in there and it tenderises it, removing the moisture so it cooks quicker and tastes better. 100 grams a day, keep the fat on, gives 30 days if it dries down to 3 kilogram or 3000 grams, which it wouldn't lose a quarter but just the worse case scenario used. At 1.66 a day, it would be more expensive to eat a packet of chips or two apples.
That sucks! I eat steak at least 3 days a week
But how much methane does rice production emit relatively adjusted for calories? Too lazy to look it up myself, cooking rn.
Hope your move goes well, Adam!
thanks! bit by bit..!
All the reductions we need to make are wrapped up in things we do for humans. Which is to say, easier said than done! Especially if you don’t present the numbers involved. Get dirty with the numbers, and it looks way harder than you sound.
That isn't the end of the story, either. Our current atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases imply continual warming for many decades, even if we reduce emissions. The permafrost is currently offgassing CO2 and CH4 in large volumes that will only become more robust over time. As we reduce our emissions, natural source emissions will rise. Right now, scientists are saying that more CH4 is coming from equatorial wetlands and rice patties. As the planet warms, microbial life gets a significant boost.
I hope your next video can cover some details of the situation.
7:20 well it is rocket science! a fuel leak is a really bad thing in rocket science too!
Prof Michael Mann & Carolyn Ruppel (USGS) over the last couple of years have stonewalled, or blocked commenters on Twitter who posed the question "what about the dangers of methane increases?", or responded by arrogantly saying things like people don't know what they are talking about. Mann has penned lots of peer-reviewed papers, but for whatever reason appears to have a dislike for discussing methane.
Maybe your comments are not worthwhile.
@@TheDanEdwardstake up some reading of the disagreement between Mann and Hansen, then engage.
@@greenftechn I've heard and red both. The OP was just trying to play the victim.
can't wait for the MethaneSAT footage to get online
Can't wait for Federal ESG Compliance Materiality Assessment Compulsory Carbon Tax Authority! _"E Pluribus Pay, and Sin No More!"_ 😂🎉$tufidö!
Counting down the days
Judge orders railway to pay Washington tribe nearly $400 million for trespassing with oil trains! Wait, what about the THEFT of $1,000,000,000s in illegitimate 'carbon taxes'(sic) to grift all these cheap-Chinese solar install gypo artists, *stolen from the majority of Workers who RENT!?*
@@robertmarmaduke186 what?
yes!! ive just read on it from Environmental Defense Fund yesterday. So promising! to think it's just been recently developed.. we should quickly find a way to spread the word.
Important video.
Hi,
Just wondering that the methane from cows burping is actually coming from the vegetation being broken down right?
How can you account for what amount of vegetation would or wouldn't have broken down at one stage or another in any case?
Also if it's correct correct where does the methane in the plants come from before that?
Thanks.
Not an expert. But I believe the methane is from the cows gut biome. The microbes in the stomach of the cow release methane as they process the plant material. That’s also probably why the seaweed reduces the methane production. It disrupts the gut microbes, leading them to be less active and thus, produce less methane. But that’s a guess, this is the first I’ve heard about it and need to do more research.
Hope that helps!
@@JumpingSpider37 Thanks, yeah I've be looking through a few searches also. Perhaps vegetation can be broken down into methane otherwise, its the oxygen deprived environments like wetlands and the digestion of animals, particularly ruminants.
I'm being lead to believe it's a pretty inconsequential cycle within a functional ecosystem such as grassland, forest or wetlands, where methane compound would be broken back down. When you have animals in non functional ecosystem like feed lot operations and just heap the manure up in a pile ect, then its a broken cycle and more methane escapes into the wider climate.
It's not necessarily the plants breaking down and releasing methane, it's the microbes eating the plants and organic garbage and letting off methane as a byproduct
@@ericritchie6783 Yes! This is also something I’ve read when looking at literature on regenerative farming practices. There have been studies done that suggest when using rotational grazing regimes you can actually sequester carbon through stimulating grass growth with grazing followed by a period of rest for the field. The challenge is that these practices can’t be done at the scale of beef production that is currently required. I think the answer is still we eat less beef. But we also need to move away from industrial scale ranching where things like cow manure become a noxious byproduct, rather than a fertilizer.
As I understand this, the methane produced by cows is part of a cycle so the production of methane by cows is largely exaggerated... Who knows...
Not just Schmethane companys are unerreporting, schoal mines are also prone to underreport.
So what's worse; cows eating grass and burping, or having to ship/truck seaweed to farms throughout the country?
In general (as discussed on my food vid) shipping and transport is a pretty tiny part of food's carbon footprint.
@@ClimateAdam welp, I guess now I have to binge watch your channel.
Permafrost. Permafrost. Permafrost. It’s melting faster and faster with each passing year. As the earth warms up. More permafrost melts. Which warms the earth more. If satellites are tracking this wouldn’t this show up?
The conversation we need is about the natural sources of methane release. As permafrost melts microbes get at the detritus material that use to be frozen for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years causing that carbon to be released as CO2 and methane. In other words, CO2 has warmed the planet enough to cause permafrost to melt causing methane to be released in a reinforcing feedback loop. Back in 2008 my professor warned me about this exact thing. I hope I am wrong!
@Frosty Your professor is an tidoit. The very thin humic layer A-horizon melts and then refreezes _every year since the year dot!_ Underneath is sand, gravel, clay and more ice. *No carbon*. You should have stood up in class, and demanded your tuition back. 😂🎉 $tufidö!
@@robertmarmaduke186 So you don't know what permafrost is then. That's ok. few do.
Glad I stopped buying rice then.
I discovered that my high carbohydrate diet was ruining my health - so, out went the rice, potatoes, all grains (yep, no more bread, except on my birthday as a 'rare treat.' But still no cakes, no biscuits, no products with added wheat derivatives). Also, no more sugar either.
I went into intermittent fasting, so that's now 2 meals per day instead of 3.
Therefore, having cut down on food by at least one-third (without carbs, you're less likely to 'snack' too) and quitting veganism (I'd been vegan 4 years, vegetarian for 40 years), I returned to mainly vegetarian with occasional fish. My health improved greatly.
I expect vegans will be critical of my return to dairy foods, but since I don't eat grains (which contributes to an awful lot of ploughing, harrowing, tilling, and spraying - this releasing even more CO2 into the atmosphere with every pass of the tractor), I think this is an acceptable trade off.
I only have organic, grass fed dairy produce, and grow a lot of my own fruits, vegetables and mushrooms every year - which means zero plastic packaging waste and transport for all these items.
I have never criticised others for their eating habits, and never tried to influence anyone to go vegan. Under the circumstances, I'm glad I never did so.
A lot of fake vegan meats and processed products are little more than chemistry sets in fancy wrapping with the added insult of a high price tag.
I went down the road of veggie burgers, sausages, fake chicken, bacon and all that jazz.
Poison.
All of it.
When I got sick and my husband did some research into this stuff, he told me to look at the ingredients list.
I did.
Most vegan products in my freezer/fridge had a minimum of 3-4 dozen ingredients. One product had just over 100.
100 ingredients, and I didn't recognise most of them because they were chemical names.
Do I know if those chemicals are safe in my food after long term consumption?
I don't know, and likely 'you' don't either.
Now, how much energy went into the processing and extraction of all those separate ingredients (including various types of vegetable oil - that necessitates industrial scale manufacturing through 'multiple' processes including heating and chemical scrubbing)? These ingredients then remanufactered to make one product again.
Vegan food isn't food.
It's an industrial product.
And lots of people are eating this stuff thinking that it's as healthy for them as it is for the planet. But I question whether it is either.
If you are going to do the best for your planet in terms of food production - eat simply, don't indulge in sugary snacks (which are designed to make you feel hungrier with ingredients such as modified starches and sugar hidden under different names), don't drink alcohol (another form of sugar and an unnecessary indulgence), practice intermittent fasting if you have the will and strength to do so (lose weight, beat diabetes 2), don't eat any fast food (fried in industrialised vegetable oil), eat as few grain products as possible (processed food, high agricultural impact on soil), eat only a little meat and/or dairy now and again (don't need it daily), buy organic as much as possible (there is no such thing as truly organic. That's a myth. All soil, air and water is contaminated. But in buying organic, not only do you lessen the smount of pesticides and herbicides in your intake - you also help 'prevent' the production of new chemical controls in the future... Never forget, Glyphosate is bad enough. But Monsanto is corrupt enough to push something worse onto the market and pretend it's safe for years before we discover it isn't. Applying pesticides as freely as many farmers do at present is about the same as constantly handing anti-biotics to humans. It helps breed tougher, more resistant strains of the original problem).
Best of all - grow at least some of your own food.
Even if you are gardening-shy, you can choose one vegetable, something easy like peas or potatoes or Oca (if you live in a reasonable climate) or courgettes or lettuce, and become an expert in that one crop alone.
Once you become expert in one, add another string to your bow and grow another easy crop.
The main failing of all novice gardeners who jump into raising their own food is - trying too many crops at once, eithout the proper time to look after any of them properly. You only have to look after one crop really well to enjoy the experience of a glut of produce and find yourself half filling your freezer to last the winter.
Gardening is not a case of having green fingers, but having the capacity to learn by your mistakes. I'm a gardener by profession, but I wasn't a good one straight away. I had to work at it, for years. But you'd trample your mother to get to my peach tree, as the fruit is many times better than anything you would get in a shop.
Many people overestimate how many plants they need to make a difference. If you're living alone, a student for instance, a windowsill of lettuce, 2 courgettes and a half dozen pea plants on the balcony is enough to make a big difference to you. Unused seed can be stored in a dry part of the fridge until next year. It will last in most cases.
Cannot think of a climate or environment metric that we are winning .
Hurrah for this channel. Climate science from a climate scientist. Sheer genius! 🎉😊
So glad you're into it!
If small amounts of seaweed actually can alter the metabolism in cows to the point that a lot on average, and up to 90% reduction, I've even read up to 99% of methane generation is achieved, in early experimentation without much optimization, without negative side effects, we should focus tremendous effort in how to utilize that, and also use that magic on other other biogenic methane sources.
But, it's not without negative side effects, the addition also cause a significant decrease in feed uptake, meaning, even if you can reduce the methane from each cow, you'd need more cows for a given production, and that means net increase in cost and resource use, and no net benefit. The findings about methane reduction was published a decade ago, and there has been a lot of studies on it since, despite the fact that it would be very strange if some seaweed actually could reduce methane production in cows without causing significant negative effects. It's about as absurd as proposing that some additive to fuels could reduce CO2 in the exhaust from combustion engines as much, and without causing significant drawbacks.
Why would that be strange? There are many solutions to climate change that could be implemented without significant drawbacks (like home insulation), but are not because of their initial cost (even though they save money in the long run)
@@frankcl1 It would be strange because it would have to alter how the digestions system works fundamentally.
Comparing that to insulation doesn't make any sense.
@@fishyerik
That's really not so strange. The digestive system is largely microbes. Some antibiotics and other medication cause it to have problems
My 5cents is cows aren't fed a healthy diet anyway.
@@bdnnijs192 It would be strange if some minor food additive happened to change the digestive system fundamentally, in just a highly desired way, that you wish for, without negative side effects.
And, the methane is generated regardless of what they eat, even wild ruminants produce a lot of methane, that's not unhealthy for ruminants, methanogens is a vital part of their gut microbiome.
@@fishyerik
It is possible for food additives (sugar, hormones, antibiotics, ..) to change the digestive process. Just not in a positive way? Didn't enriching food with iodine lead to highly desirable health outcomes?
It's worth considering cows burp because we feed them cow junkfood, and a more appropriate diet might reduce the issue.
What is the target/ideal co2 ppm? Commercial greenhouses supplement co2 to over 1000 ppm for robust plant growth .
3:13 haha imagine referring to lasting an entire decade like that
why is there a transatlantic split on the pronunciation of methane? me-thane versus meth-ane.
The US will truly do anything to include meth in the conversation
Aluminum.
I mentioned a concern for rising Methane to Michael Mann 6 months ago. He blocked me on X.
A predicament, not a problem. For every solution there is a problem.
And where does water vapor (humidity) fit in to the greenhouse gas picture? Is it in the top 3? Have you done a video on wet bulb temperatures?
Thanks for this. I've had a quick look, So is there a good series of pie charts of both natural and man made emission proportions over time. And maybe something showing total emission amounts please? I'm thinking that tundra thaw release is something that might be increasing a lot. But i also can't think how it might be effectively measured apart from by satellite?
I'd think the "methane budget" reports might give you what you're looking for
@@ClimateAdam Thank you
Besides cutting out beef lamb and Dairy each of us could reduce methane by composting when possible. Composting significantly reduces the methane that would otherwise be produced in landfills from food waste.
Composting creates methane. Wouldn't you just be moving the problem?
@@bdnnijs192 the amount of methane produced from composting is significantly less than the amount of methane from landfills if you do not compost that food waste. What do you propose that we do with that food waste instead? A simple Google search will confirm
@@someguy2135
Fair enough
QUESTION what happens to the methane and the CO2 when they "leave" the atmosphere?. I have read that methane and O3 in the upper atmosphere are subject to a lot of lightening bolts which causes them to react forming water and (oh no) CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere is in a kind of dynamic equilibrium with the CO2 in the sea... But there isn't a lot to actually remove it except photosynthesis. I'm not very confident that these explanations are right. Could you comment? (Good luck with moving.!).
actually my upcoming video will discuss - among other things - CO2's long life in the atmosphere, how it leaves, and what this means for all of us
Here in California USA the law requires us to put kit hedn scraps in the yardwaste bin rather than the garbage bin. So that kind of gabage stays out of the landfill.
Californians are crazy.
Methane oxidizes in the atmosphere under sun light.?
Thank you 🌏🌎🌍
Enough with all the "me, me, me, me, me", Thane!
Is it Me-Thane or Meth-ane? Because when I heard this presumably Australian guy say Me-Thane, I knew I couldn't continue
I'm British, and I'm sorry that the existence of different accents from your own is so disturbing to you.
@@ClimateAdam yesh and your snark and sarcasm aren't helping
I've read that about 23-25% of all the expected warming is attributable to land use changes, a kind of urban heat island effect writ laarge. But I don't know exactly what it takes into effect. Do you have a video on the subject?
there are (at least!) two effects from land use change: change in the reflectivity of the surface (which can cause heating) and also loss of carbon (e.g. from deforestation). I've seen estimates that land use change is responsible for about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions since the 1700s. no video focused on this just yet, but definitely touched on it (for example when talking about the Amazon or food)
Everyone under 60, could eat everyone over 60; that would work.😂
Does Methane have black belt, tho?
The percentage of natural gas delivery networks and fracked petroleum wells can and do release methane in huge plumes visible with thermography that are present out to 3km from the well, depending on geology.
The problem is it is very, very profitable and that's why corporations should not exist.
Really enjoyed your video😃
Don't forget about all the arctic permafrost melting. That's the methane bomb for the environment 😮
methane turns to co2 after about 10 years so it's a double whammy
Actually Methane (Natural Gas) when burned produce almost as much CO2 as COAL. When leaked produce CH4
Thanks
thanks so much for your support! 💚
❤
Bedankt (Dutch)
danke für die Großzügigkeit!
Some of this stuff is going to take research, investments and planning...
Some of it is going to take a guy with a pipe wrench. WHEREVER should we start?
Colossal Mules!!! 🤣😆🤣
🐴
Hi Adam. Lets say this year there will be so many tipping points. It would be smart to be in contacte with me.
what about the tundra!!!
that's a topic for the follow up vid, looking at how natural systems are being disrupted by human activity
You stated that there is now 2.5x more methane in the atmosphere than before the industrial revolution. From what I can find online (the 2022 Global Methane Assessment) it says current levels are 260% of pre-industrial levels. This means that there is now 1.6x more methane than before pre-industrial levels. I think you meant to say there is 2.5x *as much* methane in the atmosphere as before pre-industrial times.
To say "2.5x more" would mean that the concentration is 350% of the initial value.
For example, if you had said it was "1x more", it would mean that something had doubled.
I know this sounds like nitpicking, but it's not - it's about being accurate with what you say. I've corrected other science communicators about this before, and they have (eventually!) agreed with me, as do my maths PhD friends...
Thanks.
Another great video on an important topic from you and your doppelganger buddy. Good luck with your move Adam.
My pal isn't pulling their weight shifting the boxes!
Great video, and congrats on receiving your 50,000th subscriber!
thank you Kieran! I feel so honoured to have so many of you lovely people in this community!
You can not fight agains a molecula... It's too small.. .;)
Hi Adam, love the work.
I am anesthesiologist and we stuff we are use for anesthesia can be very unfriendly for climate. There are mostly two gases: sevofluran and much worse desflurane. I try to convince my colleagues to use the first one, but the second one is more convinient. I think it would make i good video ;) Also there Nitrous Oxide aka laughing gas. Bad stuff but rarely used nowadays.
Pretty sure any emission is small in comparison to industrial emissions.
@@danielheckel2755 It is. 0,01 to 0,1% of global emissions. Still, it's just few thousands people around the world.
What is the GWP of methane emitted just for today? Acccording to AMEG (Artic Methane Emergency Group) it is 155.
What is the GWP of methane emitted just for tomorrow? 155.
What is the GWP of methane emitted just next year? 155.
What is the GWP of methane emitted ten years from now? 155.
What is the average GWP of methane emitted over that time? 155.
Very convenient for the energy sector that agriculture combines farming (like Rice) and meat production (like beef), otherwise Methane (Natural Gas) would be in FIRST PLACE as the worst Methane (CH4) source.
Also convenient for the energy sector that transportation combines commercial transportation ( plane and truck), public transportation and private transportation otherwise Methane would also be in FIRST PLASE as the worst CO2 source.
Depending how you classify the source of GHG ( CO2 and CH4) the governmental agency take the spot light away from the worst source which in my opinion is no other than NATURAL GAS.
Love you video, they are quite accurate given the constraint on how the government classify those source to benefit the industrial complex.
Would to love to know what would the benefit be to replace all energy created by natural gas with hydro power and nuclear. Just like what we do here in Québec? Hint, we don't pay carbon tax ... and get cheap electricity.
A massive wish-list here, Adam! Melting permafrost is a big methane contribution too... You do know that nobody votes to be poorer, ever, so nothing that would cost a fossil fuel corporation money, will be put into practice as the cost would be passed on to us, the consumer...
Yes, corporations and the profit motive are the problem.
@@russtaylor2122 There is no methane in permafrost just mineral soil and ice. You're (not) thinking of clathrates deep in the ocean.
@@robertmarmaduke186 Oh, really? For your homework tonight children, i want you to type the words 'Does permafrost contain methane?' into google, then fax the answer to Mr. Marmaduke...
Human farts contribute something.😂
No more farting contests? Damn!
whoopwhoop
We are slowly can kicking 2030 to 2050. Which is what I said was going to happen. I dont think we will actually get a decrease in co2 and methane emissions in my lifetime let alone get to net zero
Thank you Adam 😄
50.000 subscribers reached 🎉 well done!
Woop woop! 🎉🎉🎉
What if we had colossal mules generating megaJoules by pulling enormous turbines? Ok, I know the correct unit is Watts, but I couldn't resist the rhyme. Thanks for another excellent video that addresses the important points and explains them so clearly!
omg finally - the silver bullet climate solution we've been waiting for!
@@ClimateAdam didn't someone in the 1800s warn that central London would be nine feet deep in horse manure by 1950 if things went along as they were?
@@ClimateAdamHey, I love your videos! Just a quick question: are we actually past 1.5C of warming already? I’ve been seeing some articles saying that we are, but I don’t know if they’re sensationalized or not.
Again, love your work!
@@DINO_X65 "past 1.5C" - what does "past" and "1.5C" mean? Because _climate_ is not about immediate or transient measurements, climatologists prefer to speak of long-term averages.
@@TheDanEdwards I've heard that the global temperature over the past 12 months have been over 1.5C above pre-industrial. I don't know the period over which they have to measure it for the climate to actually be considered at a certain level. I was wondering if 12 months is enough to see, or if temperatures have actually been that way.
Check out Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101, if you aren't already on the Roadmap, for ways to abate methane.
There is no need to dumb Down this message. We aren't all low-IQ.
Your videos are really helpful but sometimes you drags one thing for a bit too long which makes the video boring and makes confusion, please stick to the point and make videos shorter for easy to understand
Because of capitalism, mate.
is it me-thane or meth-ane?
depends which kind of English you speak! as someone who grew up in the UK "me-thane" is more natural to me
E-Thane, Me-Thane, Pro-Pane, Bu-tane,
These are all essentially in the same family of hydro-carbons.
So Me-thane feels like it fits better to my English ears. But then I also spell Aluminium. not Aluminum.
@@ncammann z_ane, the "ane" being the part that is common. In general, English speakers from the UK slaughter Latin and Greek rooted words.
mehth-ahn-ee
@@ncammann in-sane
Spent wayy too much time on food. Over population, military exercises, shipping, factories, plastics,, and power plants are the elephants in the room.
In methane? I mean, it's a video about methane.
Beyond the scope of the video.
Also, "overpopulation" is just malthusian capitalist realism, the population itself isn't the problem, it's the over consuming, heavily wasteful capitalist society that had been exported globally.
I.E. we have enough food and housing for everyone, we choose to let people die on the streets
In order of contribution, the biggest human sources of atmospheric methane are agriculture, fossil fuels, waste. Which is the order I went with here.
Billions of people will die this century. I live in Alberta Canada a Huge Methane Producer.
Videos like this always have a dose of optimism. So if you are an optimist you will feel good because there is hope. But if you are a pessimist you will feel that we are f...And, yes, if you are a realist you will also understand that we are f....
I am a natural grassland rancher with a program with Bird LIfe International and we have net negative emissions.
🫡
Why does no one include Saharan dust as a problem
What "percentage" of atmospheric methane is finally chemically converted to CO2 by oxidation from hydroxyl radicals ?
Hi Dr. Adam!
I know that _current_ rates of progress aren't sufficient to achieve the Paris goals, but about _future_ rates? When we look at how our fight against climate change is _accelerating,_ how much more hopeful should we be?
One thing one can look at for such an estimate is Climate Action Tracker and their "optimistic" projections. It's currently at less than 2 degrees more than 1.5
So glad I found you , Adam, you popped out of a NYT article I was reading , then from X to RUclips. You have a new fan from France.
Bienvenue! 💚
Cow burps. Really.
So damn informative, thanks Adam!
thanks so much Eric!
Thanks for this one, Adam! I watched a presentation of Gaby Petron's (NOAA) work a few years ago on The YEARS Project channel. It was called 'Chasing Methane' and the numbers on methane release was truly terrifying.
Brilliant! Thank you Adam... I look forward to it. Keep up the good work!
thank you Philipp!
Thanks Climate Adam - I hope move goes/went well!
getting there, box by box!
But methane breaks down to CO2 within a few years. And climate change is a longer term issue. So I can't understand why methane is a huge problem compared to CO2.
it's not a huger problem than CO2, but it definitely can't be neglected. some estimate it's behind a third of warming. and despite that breakdown, concentrations are still going up.
It breaks down to CO2 _relatively_ quickly, but it's also a much more potent greenhouse gas in the meantime, which is why it has a fairly large effect on climate change. Therefore, addressing methane emissions is important.
Half life of CH4 (methane) is 10,5 years. It decays into CO2 and H2O. Both carbon-dioxide and water are potent greenhouse gases.
Remember that stuff isn't gone after one half life period. Half is still left, and the byproducts can also contribute to the greenhouse gas effect
You didn't mention methane from thousands of small dry oil wells which have been crudely capped or not capped at all.
We've had ruminants on the earth for millenia and the methane that they emit is part of a cycle, where the carbon from the brakdown of methane is absorbed by the vegettion that partly goes to feed the animals and is partly stored is the ricch soil that ruminants help to create so geting rid of cattle will do as much harm as good,
Agree on the old wells, but are you really trying to argue, the amount of ruminants has been anywhere near what it´s at now for millennia?
@@fka-Kaya Just consider the massive herds of Bison and Elephants we used to have to mention just two.
Is there a study that shows modern cattle production creates same methane as natural mammals in a natural environment?
@@eclecticcyclist a way smaller number than cattle that exists today.
Thank you for the video Adam! I enjoy your channel because of your Socratic delivery and priority on facts. Termites were a new one for me. Looking through the comments, it's sad that governments around the world are actively ignoring methane contributions. Our choice of ignorance will be our downfall. Hope this video reaches the audience you're hoping for!
I am indian, l with you bro.
Great to have you here! 😊
What do you help me 🙏 for climate change for india, l mean ..........>..,,,,❤
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
This dude was a physicist who was way too comfortable making huge conclusions about things well outside of his field. His perspective is also cherry-picked and in no way represents the overwhelming scientific concensus around climate change which is extremely clear that we need to reduce emissions drastically.
This viewpoint also doesn't even address climate change as an issue. Like even if all the trees are really happy about increased CO2 concentrations, that doesn't help us one bit with all the massive consequences of a planet that is 3°C warmer than the pre-industrial average. I'm sure his conclusions are more comforting for you to believe, but they are not rooted in the reality we are living in, and to spread them further is frankly just irresponsible.
Be vegan eh
Let’s stop eating; that would solve everything.😂
"We're omitting" - speak for yourself... I would expect that many (if not most) of your viewers are actually aware of the problems associated with methane as a greenhouse gas.
pretty sure I said "emitting"!
Anyone watching this who isn't vegan yet... why?
Raised on mainly pork chops, also ground beef, bacon, liver and blood-pudding, yes a LOT of boiled potato to that, love haricots verts &MUCH cetera greens. Studied chem & geology at Royal Tech and Stockholm University in Sweden. BUT mainly. Because my father was born a poor worker's son, and he was healthy as an ox, and taught my mom to cook. His favourite childhood food was lung-mash. Because that was the meatiest you could get for the cheapest: you go to the butcher's and buy two lungs and a heart, still attached to the trachea (airways), and you mash them, spice them and boil them.
Informative video, but the humor is awful. 😅
It's not good.
By not stressing the natural amounts of frozen methane he is doing science malpractice
I love the information you provide in your videos, but I think you try a bit too hard to be funny/goofy. Personally I prefer a bit more serious approach, the goofyness is distracting and gets annoying after a while. Just my personal opinion.
Not a fan of the third person schtick?
So, mr ‘climate scientist’, cow burps are warming the planet are they? 😂
Let see you deal with real scientists like on the Tom Nelson series.