Why do the IPCC models continue to predict temperature wrong? Our observations indicate a much lower climate sensitivity , and why are only independent researchers talking about it?
Only floating, anchored communities will be immune to rising sea levels. If they're designed to withstand the fiercest hurricane winds, then they should fare better than coastal cities.
The policies (and their execution) and carbon trade might be the majority change makers in climate change but upto what extent can a tech or device help in reducing/capturing GHG emissions? PS: I'm asking this because any technological solution which is physical and deployed at such massive level would take up its own space and energy, have its own carbon footprint. On the other hand, policies are just agreement to carry out current procedures a bit differently (essentially a non materialistic approach)
Fantastic job finding all this information and summarising it so succinctly. I have no idea how you can make great videos so quickly, but thank you for doing it!
You have just witnessed yet another Nazti Neo World Order Sales-Preachers of the Uber-Science variety... I used to respect her for her anti-LHC (2) stance, but even that is slipping as she gets sucked into the fake-green mega-liberal globalist forced sustainable profits scam.. Forced obsolescence, continuous 'renewable' junk power sales... You Lithium + Neodymium economy stinks compared Iron, aluminium + carbohydrate economy... Climate 'Prediction' is an insult to Science.. no better than the Sozial Sciences when it comes to mass population manipulation by a load of bullshitting zealous NWO fanatics... Scientism is the neo religion for La La Lander sheeple-parrot guinea pig morons - that think they're riotous, like deluded Christains of old...
You might like to read this def; '' "Sabine women" in Latin. The Sabine were an ancient Italian tribe. 5s are explorers who love to connect with others. Curious and impulsive, they're free-spirited, enjoy travelling, and adapt easily to new situations ''. In some ancient Arabic it means; a case of randomness and unease. Hope you like that as it captures some of your character in my opinion. Best wishes.. for magnificent work.
Grow hemp, make it into fiber, wrap the fiber around the extra dimensions, wallah carbon capture. Where's our $25million each? The only problem I can think of is that Schrodinger's cat is gonna keep trying to unravel it.
@@arctic_haze THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
Sabine has a way of explaining complex subjects in a manner accessible to most people with average intelligence. No annoying music and no theatrics, the way it should be done.
If water -> help trees, captures co2 and is a green house gas, that can be made into a liquid at attainable pressure and temperature maybe we should start creating wetlands with the help of industry. +Food production +decrease desertification -water wars + atmospheric manipulation(more predictable weather) ect. I can't believe we as a some what developed fish can't make water and talk about water war and day zero and instead we make plastic. Thank you Sabine for all of you, i look up to you. Love, Random Swedish engineer.
Even though trees are "Too expensive" maybe we need to go back to living IN the trees - solve the housing crisis AND the Carbon Dioxide problem. We'll just genetically engineer trees to be more "Useful" and coat them in fungicides and unrecyclable plastics so they could never rot - what could possibly go wrong ~ Do not google "Day of the Triffids" .
Mollusks are very good at making solid calcium carbonate shells. The shells could be placed on the deep sea floor far from subduction zones. Existing aquaculture methods could be used. Problems exist with this idea however, as the waste products of the organism are a pollutant.
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 I was thinking a similar thing - CO(subscript 2) to limestone / calcium carbonate. The Romans did an incredible amount with limestone/ lime derivatives*. And +1 on the biological solution (as I don't think there are practicable "man made" viable synthetic / engineered solutions]. Although the Chinese have need of artificial islands; Nuclear powered de-salination plants that produce fresh water AND remove Carbon Dioxide AND make billions of tons of limestone ~ I think there needs to be a $ viable bi-product to offset rather than having the process be x amount of $s or less per ton. [@James Driscol_tmp the Mediterranean is having a whale of a time with it's seaweed/snail problem.]. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ * Seems concrete as used in buildings and civil engineering projects (Portland cement based processes ) are a significant contributor to the atmospheric (CO₂ ) ~ Wonder if stuff based on lime - Roman style - with a 2020s twist would help reduce that ? [Make lime/limestone from CO₂ and Calcium (based complexes) and partially reduce Portland cement usage ? - need to check out the final chemistry for that see how it balances out.].
If you dump top management of oil companies, you will win the prize, because the carbon will stay in a safe place underground for millions of years for $0 per tone.
Sabine, Awesome video! Some feedback: #1) I think it's worth mentioning the Azolla Event in which atmospheric carbon was reduced (leading to the ice ages with humanity). A lot of oil companies actually wanted to develop the Arctic because in theory there are loads of carbon stored there (though it might be all kerogen). It is some evidence of ocean fertilization (in that case slit + fresh water) working. I'm amazed how few people know about it (and it might surprise many to find that before this the CO2 concentration was generally >1000ppm; there is a reason why your dinosaur museums don't have any snow, the Earth geologically speaking usually doesn't have ice caps!). Ironically Azolla still grows today but unfortunately we don't have a massive nutrient rich semi fresh/semi saline environment. #2) Ocean storage of CO2, beneath the ocean at cold temperatures you form these cool CO2 hydrates (ices) that will essentially sequester. Very cool physics with hydrates!!! At 0C and 30000kPag (hydrostatic pressure at 3km) the ocean can be >10% liquid CO2 without hydrates. Instead of heating, just move the CO2 water down there by low energy turbine. Way WAY less energy than heating and/or compression. #3) Algae storage - my personal favorite is Sargassum. It floats and is big, easy to filter and capture. Ironically when fertilizer builds up out of the Mississippi and the Amazon and the temps are right BOOM - Sargassum invasion of the beaches! Let's go get it. This might help stop hurricanes from your earlier videos if we did those plumes on purpose! #4) With biochar the other 50% is fuel that you can upgrade. You upgrade it (sorry, not going to publicly tell you how to avoid all that coke!) and sell the fuels balancing the carbon cycle at a profit while you sequester CO2. Now you have a profitable carbon sequestration option. #5) With carbon engineering it takes energy to power those fans and I still don't get what they are going to do with the CO2. Carbon capture with amine is cool, but you need to compress the CO2 with power. Annoying. Clean Energy Systems though has a cool oxyfired combuster with a turbine and then they are sequestering the CO2, pretty cool. In Alberta and Sask we have a couple CO2 sequestration projects but you need reservoirs that can store the CO2 (not always nearby). Ocean works but you have a gas generally in these cases and who wants to compress to 10000kPag to overcome hydrostatic pressure? #6) Don't forget your super cool chemolithoautotrophic organisms! Here you use H2S (that's right, hydrogen sulfide) and oxygen reduced by bacteria to make biomass. Then you make some fuels by hydrothermal liquid faction and then pump the organics and sulfates under ground where geothermal heat and anaerobic digestion make H2S again and you get to cycle the H2S. Unfortunately it is much easier to have concrete with CO2. The Western Research Institute actually has a patent on the CAT process. I have seen these organisms (the bacteria of which is usually in tubeworms under the ocean) used for sweetening natural gas. Some cool physics there, some have said that this might be how life would develop with the sulphur cycle on other planets (though you still need oxygen for reduction, so go figure).
The dimensions of SPACE are ALL CLEARLY balanced, AS E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. By Frank DiMeglio
One of my ideas is "lateral levies". Dig trenches perpendicular to rivers and streams, using the dirt to make a very short levy to the downstream side of each trench. Fill the trenches with carbon-absorbing gravel (water activates the process). There's a bit more, but the effect is to guarantee a small amount of flooding (to the spillways) but prevent anything damaging. This inverts the current system, where your levy sends water downstream, guaranteeing serious flooding downstream, resulting in an 'arms race' to build the highest levy; instead, your levy protects your downstream neighbors, recharges aquifers, keeps rivers flowing year round, fertilizes the land, and removes carbon from the atmosphere. Since the ancillary services are worth more than the cost, lateral levies remove carbon at negative cost. "Flood like an Egyptian"
Storing CO2 in rocks is not as easy as just pouring water onto it. If you flood your trenches, the rocks aren't in contact with the CO2 contained in the air. This process requires rain like pouring.
Floodplanes like these are widely in use, popularized by the Dutch way of doing water management, FYI! Sans the carbon capture. I moved to Germany, and it is interesting to see the idea make its way up the rivers. Who would have thunk that if water has a place to go, it won't end up in residential areas. :D
I don't have a new idea, I've heard it elsewhere but a much faster plant for capturing carbon is bamboo which, being a grass, grows very fast. Some tropical bamboos are thick and strong enough to use for construction and they can also be steam processed into boards and planks for flooring etc. You can grow a crop of bamboo, harvest it, grow another crop and harvest it over and over again in the time that it takes to grow one stand of softwood trees. Once the bamboo is part of a building its carbon is locked up for decades at least.
I think Blue Planet was where I heard that sea grasses are the largest single carbon sink on the planet, other than ocean water, itself. It might be interesting to find a way to grow more of that. Might be useful as a food source or, as above, a faster way to sink carbon into deep water.
Hi Sabine, I'm right in the middle of CCS right now. The high end of the full chain costs is in all honesty a bit more than you stated ... about 50 - 150. I couldn't place your statement about water consumption, though. There are some 50 projects ongoing in Europe right now. But at best a few will be onstream '26 and many wont be before '30. I always introduce CCS by saying ... "if we want carbon to be stored in teh ground, the first and cheapest thing you should do is not take it out of the ground in the first place". Effciiency and redcued consumption is king..More lately I have moved on to saying ... "the time for debating what's best is past. We have to get on and do what we can and do it today. We can do CCS today". Musk has always championed the idea that he's not daugnted by costs unless they have to be reduced by more than a factor 10 PROVIDED THAT thermodynamics do not limit. People who are getting after new ways to meet this challenge really must take that into account for their full chain. Good luck.
Great summary! Re enhanced weathering: My understanding is that one doesn't 'artificially create' the absorbing minerals, but one just digs them out of the ground. To start with, millions or probably billions of tons of existing mine tailings *already* could be ground and distributed to take up CO2.
True in principle, but the grinding and transport are more expensive than the digging. Also, rock that's worth mining tends to have various elements in it that aren't great to release into the environment. So there's probably some that's worth processing, but mostly it's best to use ultramafic rock that's not worth mining but gives the best value in CO2 absorbed per dollar spent on grinding.
Plant trees, reduce agricultural land usage, further protected natural habitats, reduce individual transportation and further the public version, etc. Where are my 50 million?
Trees are a proxy for plants. The key is maximizing biomass production per unit area. Aquatic plants produce far more biomass than terrestrial plants (up to 7X). I did experiments to measure biomass production in 2009-10 in connection with wastewater treatment. One of the key factors to consider is ease of harvest. Algae is produces the most biomass by far, but is hard to remove and produces eutrophic lakes when it falls to the bottom. (The bottom strata of the lake become oxygen poor killing benthic organisms and disrupting the food chain). Macro algae is a better option for ease of harvest. There is some very good research at the Salk Institute in the area of biosequestration (Joanne Chory). I think she has a lock on the $50M prize.
"it's like you elected someone out of office and now they're really pissed off, but they've got six weeks left on the job and nothing you can do about that" LOL!
I am not sure, I would agree with "often", but otherwise, yes, there could be unpleasant consequences. But, we're under a lot of pressure and have very little time left. Not doing anything would likely be far worse than whatever unpleasant consequences might occur. The consequences of global warming may well lead to the mass extinction of all higher lifeforms on our planet. I'd say that's about the worst consequence imaginable. So we can't afford to be picky or take our sweet time in dealing with the problem. Given human nature I also think that it is unlikely that we can get a sufficient number of people to change their behavior. So, if we find any cost effective solution to extract a large amount of CO² from the earth's atmosphere that would be fortunate indeed. Bold and swift action is what we need!
yeah, I have put in a lot of thought into it. A technological solution at such mass level won't be viable and as good as estimated would say since the stuff involved is physical and making that stuff takes material and energy at every step of the process. Economics, carbon trade and policies are best suited for such mass level problems but the problem with them is their poor execution and practitioner's lack of integrity.
@@ruschein A rushed solution is a poor solution. Several countries rushed to plant new trees to offset their carbon emissions. They planted the wrong kind of trees in the wrong places which resulted in large forest fires making the situation worse. Take your time and get it right.
I heard that coal actually came from a period of time when plants figured out lignans, but bacteria, etc, hadn't yet figured out their digestion. A once-in-a-"life"-time event.
Correct. When plants started using lignin, then no natural process could break it down, so dead plants just piled up while CO2 plummeted. Life on earth got very close to being wiped out. Luckily a type of fungi emerged and started to break down the plants to release CO2. The exact same thing is happening right now, but with calcium carbonates instead. It comes from dead sea animals piling up on the ocean floor, and nothing can break them down. CO2 has steadily dropped over the eons because of this. If nothing emerges the planet is heading for mass extinction. Luckily a species called humans emerged who are now restoring CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
That's only partly true. Specifically for the coal from Carboniferous era. A significant portion of coal is a bit younger. It comes from places where plant matter accumulates faster than it decomposes, forming peat (a precursor of coal).
@@BjornMoren Concerning lignin. that's right. But I have never heard, that the accumultion of dead wood during Carboniferous led to any extinctions. On the contrary, the level of oxygen in the athmosphere was much higher than today, which led to the proliferation of various land dwelling Arthropods, in particular insects. The first dragonflies appeared then and reached increadible size (up to a half meter length), apparently because the high concentration of oxygen allowed it to penetrate deeper into their exoskeleton. Insects have no active breathe organs and rely on passive gas exchange. Concerning that calcium carbonated accumulating from dead animals on the ocean floor represents a dangerous sink for athmospheric carbon, which drives biosphere to yet another extinction, I also hear such things the first time. In fact, those animals with the shells made of calcium carbonate exist on Earth already 500 million years (since Cambrian). A lot of carbon dioxid cycles had passed since then and a lot of extinctions happened (actually all known), but that those shells were somehow involved in such things says no one. I just googled for that and can find nothing. Moreover, if those dead shells were indeed a substantial way to remove CO2 from the athmosphere, after 500 millions years of that process, there would be no CO2 left at all now. What I have found, actually, is a Wikipedia article that very detaily describes full carbon cycle happening on Earth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle Those calcium carbonate sediments sink further into Earth mantle and, then, ultimately get back on the surface. In fact, the top of Everest mountain consists of those sediments.
Amazingly succinct video! Is scalability not a consideration? The mineral solution is $10/T, which seems awfully cheap, but not practical to remove 20GT per year globally.
I don't believe that the $10/Ton figure could be correct. If this were the case, the cost of beating climate change would only be $20B/year. That's equivalent to $4 from every person in the world, and the US alone would be able to solve the problem without increasing their budget by more than 0.4%, with basically no change to the everyday lives of people around the world.
That would make absolutely no sense because CO2 in cold water is about 100 times more soluble than in warm water so seal to release near these vents is exactly what we see and what you would see if you were to deposit more CO2 in these areas
Nothing new under the sun. Closed Co2 Loop, Cause and effect temp rises first co2 follows. Forcing and green house effect are like putting the cart before the horse not cause and effect. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from the galactic Nucleus/Bulge via the sun to us. Co2 Plus H2O captures the EM energy of the Galaxy via the Sun and creates life. Taxing CO2 is tantamount to taxing the EM energy of the Galaxy/Sun past present and future. Jesus had FAITH in HUMANITY, it is time for HUMANITY to have faith in themselves and JESUS or be condemned to the BIT-HU-MAN pits of hell only to be released by fire. The Galactic Milankovitch cycles cause our climate cycles. Eccentricity; 240,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge, Obliquity 60,000 years between Aphelion Ice age and Perihelion tropical age Precession 26,000 cycle every 12,000 years our solar system crosses over our galaxies electromagnetic gravitational plane for a 1,000 years causing EMP plasma bursts (pillars of Fire), Oort cloud comets, and global east to west cataclysmic Tsunami deluges. Covid like CO2 is a comfortable LIE built upon an inconvenient truth. The Baby Boomers who were born en mass 76 years ago are starting to die en mass from the usual suspects of seasonal Flu which leads to pneumonia and old age. The Covid MASK of the BEAST to BUY or SELL is a pretext for the Heavy metal vaccine of the BEAST combined with 5G microwave oven towers depopulation FINAL SOLUTION before the Great Year Resets to planet with E-W Tidal waves. China's "One Child policy" in western christian democracies is Abortion, LGBTQ, Euthanasia, Sterilization, Sex changes and anti children propaganda etc. BLM/ALM is a divide and conquer humanity by race creed and religion. Jesus loved all races because there is only one race, the HUMAN race with only one minority the INDIVIDUAL human. Slave is equal to master. Love your neighbor like your brother, because he is your brother in the human race. We all came from our mothers as equals. We are all the sum of our life's experiences and teachings. Grade 5 science could debunk CO2 caused climate cycles. Cause and effect and closed loop. Temperature is rising first and CO2 follows as the Arctic thaws due to Obliquity and Precession. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All EM energy comes from and or returns to the electromagnetic double torus we call the galactic Nucleus/Bulge. Earth is a closed CO2 loop
@@GregoryJByrne Thanks for the global overview of nearly everything - I had no clue... But this one "Earth is a closed CO2 loop" is slightly off topic!
@@TheCommono we are in the END TIMES and being LIED to I don't think anything is off topic. Wake Up. Grade 5 science could debunk CO2 caused climate change. Cause and effect and closed loop. Temp is rising first and CO2 follows, cause and effect. Earth is a closed loop that self regulates Co2 with life by combining CO2 with H2O to capture the EM Energy of the galaxies Double Torus via the Sun. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from and or returns to the galaxies double torus magnet via the Sun to Us. Covid like CO2 is a comfortable LIE built upon an inconvenient truth. The Baby Boomers who were born en mass 76 years ago are starting to die en mass form the usual suspects of seasonal FLu which leads to Pneumonia and old age. Anybody enforcing these Illegal unjust MASK of the BEAST mandates to Buy or Sell are MASK NAZI's! The MASK of the BEAST to Buy or Sell is a pretext for the FINAL SOLUTION heavy metal vacc + 5G before the END TIMES. It takes 10 years to develop a vacc IF and only IF you can isolate the virus. What variant are they on now? 5th because it is the Seasonal Flu, Baby Boomer Bust and we are in the 5th N-S seasonal Flu season. Climate change is has and will always be caused by the GALACTIC Milankovitch cycles. Eccentricity the 240,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge causes our water planet to trend from Aphelion ice age to Perihelion tropical age every 60,000 years Obliquity. We are at Event 201,000. Precession causes the END TIMES every 12,000 years when our solar system passes crosses over the center of our galaxies Double Torus Magnet, for a 1,000 years causing EMP plasma burst, Oort cloud comet impacts and global east to west cataclysmic Tsunami Mud floods. NOW for the next Millennia. The Last time our solar system crossed our galaxies electromagnetic gravitational plane was some 12,000 years ago Younger Dryas, Clovis people & Gobekli Tepe. Don't let yourselves be divided & conquered along race creed and religious lines by these evil people/families at the top of the global pyramid who own and control the Media and Money in this the END TIMES. One child, LGBTQ, Abortion, Sex change, Sterilization, Euthanasia are all DEPOPULATION before the Great Year Resets our planet in these the END TIMES. Jesus loved all races because there is only one race with only one minority, the HUMAN race and INDIVIDUAL human.
@@erwile then the efficiency may become negligible. You can read about this in the book by Bill Gates "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". It's not a viable approach.
@@KeithZSD I don't know what I'm missing. If you emit 1 T of CO2 for 10T of extraction, the effective CO2 deficit is 9T. Ok maybe I see your point, with CO2 efficiency you can know how it scales, a high efficiency has great potential, because otherwise you can emit a lot for a little CO2 deficit overall.
I appreciate the humor you bring to this presentation. Sometimes the fog of hopefulness needs to be dispelled. Most fans of such technologies are desperately grasping at straws and are blind to criticisms. Few have encountered the following headlines that I encourage viewers to search for. UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' UN Chief warns countries that the 'point of no return' on climate change is fast approaching UN warns that world risks becoming 'uninhabitable hell' for millions unless leaders take climate action The planet is on a 'catastrophic' global warming path, UN report shows
I’ve always been a fan of planting more trees, regardless of CO2. If plants absorb CO2, and sea water absorbs CO2, what about increasing plant life in the sea? Or, is that how the sea is already able to absorb more carbon dioxide?
@@svtrader I probably won't be doing that. Personally, I don't really give a shit about CO2, since a) I don't think it's an actual problem, and b) if it was, we're not causing it. I just like trees. Besides, according to Ingrid, Sabine mentions it in the video.
On the right track with genitals, best way is doing something to reduce population, that's by far the biggest cause of not just carbon problems in the world.
Hi Sabine, I enjoy and value your youtube content. I am an amateur scientist / engineer. I have worked primarily in the computer/electronics software and hardware industry. I am writing you because you approach with an open mind, are clearly highly educated, and don't fall for knee-jerk conclusions. I have these interesting thoughts... One of them years ago was when I became aware that california ground water levels were dropping so dramatically. Of course their are several factors at play. One oddball one that entered my mind was that they ship so much food out of state. And food is mainly composed of water. I never did crunch the numbers on this. Now, an issue that is dramatically more important has entered my mind. I do not have access to the specialists required to properly consider such a 'hypothesis'. Now with regards to carbon capture. I have heard that one of the prevailing techniques is to inject the atmospheric gas into rock formations. Right to the point - are we not also fixing in place oxygen as well as carbon. Many people seem to simply think - well, Kim, plants make oxygen. As you know, this is not so. This could be a serious issue - I am not sure. And surely, no one of significance will listen to me - I am not a 'certified' scientist. As far as I understand, the oxygen we have is the oxygen we have. It may cycle between different chemical combinations - but the amount is mostly/entirely fixed. What happens when we large scale pump it into rock (along with the carbon) fixing it there forever. Should we not consider this now. Regards and Thanks
The CO2 was emitted through burning which liberated energy, so wouldn't any form of carbon capture require a greater amount of energy? It seems like the technology is doomed to be cost ineffective.
Nope. While fossil fuels are indeed energy-rich, you don't have to convert it back into the original fuel, just any stable substance that binds carbon atoms. There are far less energy-intensive options.
You have to either break it apart from the oxygen, or store it as compressed gas or dry ice. Both options require a lot of energy, because both export entropy.
Is it possible to accurately quantify the greenhouse effects (warming effects in the atmosphere) of CO2, CH4 and H2O, separately for each of the gasses? Edit for clarification: What I have in mind is this: a) absolute quantities of each of the gasses in the atmosphere b) absolute quantities of heat each of them traps in the atmosphere as a whole c) how much heat each of them traps relative to the others The c) is clearly the most interesting metric and the most relevant to the discussion.
I do believe this has been done. You can inject these gasses individually in small scale greenhouses and measure their effects. I think methane comes out on top!
What you're looking for is Global Warming Potential. Wikipedia has a good article on it. The answer depends on time frame and total emissions. For example, CO2 has less GWP per tonne, but we emit a lot more of it per year, and it lasts longer in the atmosphere than methane does.
@@scp3178 Yes, I agree with Duncan Hicks here, the Wikipedia-article on GWP is both good and quite useful. GWP values are estimations, often used in engineering, for example when deciding which cooling media to use, or for estimating the environmental impact from something.
Just recently I have watched a documentary about the Cloud brightening project conducted by the Southern Cross University’s National Marine Science Centre in Coffs Harbour. Basically the aim of this project is to 'force' the incoming sunlight to be reflected back into space. I'd like to know more about the potential outcome when doing this on a global scale. Also, I'd like to know about the risk and harm this could have for our environment.
This is one of the cascade effect of global-warming that will accelerate once we reach a certain point. Snow does this exact job of reflecting light back into space. Warmer winters and decreasing glacial ice cover means the earth receives more direct warming from the sun than it did previously and further speeds up the process of global-warming.
I’m glad she mentioned that plastic is an actual stable carbon sink. The best idea would be to find large geologically stable areas for plastic carbon storage. The carbon will be locked away cheaply. Recycling is not feasible for most plastics and releases more carbon in the air. We need to remove the political stigma of plastic and go from calling it “garbage” to calling it potential “carbon storage “.
The best way to solve the energy requirement to heat ocean water to 70°C, to remove carbon from it is to build gaming cafes near the coastline. All the gaming PCs that already use lots of wattage can be hooked up to a central heat sink that uses the ocean water to cool it down and than the hot water can be pushed to a facility that removes the carbon.
I don't see how that would work. Desalination doesn't produce a stream of CO2 to capture. Green hydrogen can be produced by hydrolysis of water using electricity from any clean source. I don't see how desalination and electrolysis would work any better together than separately though.
Thanks for the information Sabine, very entertaining and informative video! One interesting climate change topic might be use of wood as biofuel, which the EU has categorized as sustainable. However there is much debate on whether this would actually contribute to climate change mitigation; i.e., increasing the use of wood as biofuel would mean less carbon is stored in the trees themselves or in long-lived wood products. Additionally, increasing the amount of production forests would mean there is less space for long-term carbon sinks, such as natural forests or other intact ecosystems, or farmland.
Why the metric is not "scalability" ? some solution can be cheap for a small amount of CO2 removal, but not for a large amount ( because of raising cost of mineral extraction for example)
If a lot of different solutions are invented in a competition where the cheapest method wins, plurality of methods eliminates scalability in the whole, while the lowest cost will get us going faster. Some measure of early success is necessary for the whole idea to have any chance to win support. ...is my guess on what the thinking is.
@@Smo1k good point, but I still think that scalability is key. When she says in the video, that we should plant the area of the us in trees, to curb climate change enough, i can see the problems with scalability like concurrence between crops and plantation of trees (that we have today in most country with trees).
About scalability: the trees solution is not scalable, there isn't enough free space to plant. But what if we planted them in the farmlands, they are good for growing plants, and occupy an enormous area. As a side effect, if you sobstitute farmlands with forests there will be mass famines that will kill a large part of the population, greatly helping in getting did of the emissions problem. Brilliant, isn't it? /s Scalability is the key for me as well, the side effects can be major
We can’t neglect the impact of melting permafrost which aggravates the gas release. Thanks for all the great videos you produced really appreciate them.
@@morpheus6749 there are massive stores of Methane gas trapped in the permafrost. Methane gas is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, some suggest up to 10 times more. Often it is regarded as the sleeping dragon, which if we wake it, we will be facing deep trouble. Securing the permafrost ecosystems is of utmost importance alongside restoring the tropical rainforests, restoring mangroves forests, restoring seagrass beds and coral reefs, restoring prairies and restoring the bountiful wildlife that once roamed through these ecosystems, alongside reductions in greenhouse input, utilization of green energy generation and artificial carbon extraction and storage systems all together is what we need.
@@amirpatel1934 "...utilization of green energy generation..." Tell me what your idea of "green energy" is and your plan to replace "non-green" sources while continuing to meet the current level of world energy demand.
@@falklumo Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page: The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio
Cheap solar, wind or hydro energy, to name just a few alternatives. In Australia solar and wind are already undermining the economic viability of fossil fuels.
@@rais1953 Hydro can't be expended for ever though. And photo voltaic cells and wind turbines are mostly made in China, whose energy mix is still overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels. It is a much better way to use fossil fuels, at the very least it allows to reduce the consumption of fossil gas. But until long term energy storage gets competitive, be it power to gas or something else, it is still fossil fuel, albeit indirectly.
I used to believe in the stereotype that Germans had no sense of humor. But Sabine is legit hilarious. I come here looking for a good laugh and always leave happy.
The descriptions of some of the techniques, for example Seawater Extraction, don't say where the extracted CO2 would be stored. That's an important omission.
The wast majority of our coal and oil depots were formed 356mya in the Paleozoic during the eon called Carboniferous. During that time, the bacteria responsible for decomposition of Phyto material was not yet developed. That meant when a tree died, the carbon stayed inside and then was buried with time. Matter of fact if you go or live next to a coal mine, you can pick up a piece of coal and open it, you may find traces of ancient plants. The funny part is, during the carboniferous nature didnt know how to get rid of all that waste tree. Now the same trees and bio mass that created lots of trouble back in those days are doing exactly the same. Releasing carbon in which nature have a hard time to handle. In one way or another, the vestiges of the Carboniferous are....cursed. Anyways IMO a possible solution is to make a lot of plastic and bury it. This is a very efficient way in storing carbon. Go tigers....
About water capture: We are already operating many facilities that are heating water all the time. I am talking about water that is used for cooling in power plants, super computers, web server facilities, etc. Using their inherent water heating with carbon capture technology seems like a clue for how to make this path fairly inexpensive.
With any carbon capture idea the big problem is what do you do with CO2 once you have captured it? It needs to be stored away somewhere, preferably for millennia. Old gas wells are a good idea, but you need to have one close by.
@@alanjenkins1508 You actually DON'T need to have one closeby. CO2 can be very easily liquified and transported to far distances to be pumped into abandoned gas wells. But a more efficient way is to first transform the CO2 in mineral form, like biochar or oil.
Sabine: Succinct, comprehensive and lovely presentation. Thank you so much. You are a magnificent credit to the human race. (Mr Musk owes you a prize for best video!) 🙂
@@johnsmith1474 Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page: The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio
@@itsReallyLou Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics. Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page: The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio
Dear Sabine, I do generally like your videos, so I'd like to ask you how you are so sure about the link climate change with CO2. I remember having seen an interview with a person involved with simulations, and I have to say that the discussion did not appear to follow the "scientific method" (you surely know what I mean). I say so, because I am not convinced of the reasons behind the climate change theories, and would really appreciate a sound explanation. In these days, your video included, the statement that CO2 shall be the magic number of a couple of centuries ago is a granted truth: please prove it. If I have not missed it among your examples, this is my "solution": grow trees and use wood to make houses, furniture, etc.: it meets the scopes, and just note that the cost(/ton) may be zero, or even negative!
You need to understand that powerful people will use whatever they can to achieve their goals. Information is highly controlled on the Internet and television. Ask yourself, when in the last 4 billion years was 'the climate' NOT changing. A static climate is a false premise. But fear of some climate catastrophe has been indoctrinated into a whole generation or two of students... And this fear will be used to justify new levels of totalitarian control over once free economies... just as a cough virus is used to justify economic shutdowns that weaken and kill small businesses, while growing Amazon and other mega-corporations who have the power to influence government for their own benefit. It's all about power and wealth. When you see someone avoiding an obvious truth, beware their hidden agenda. Question everybody. Money buys a lot of things.
@@MrZog-yv3be It was a surprise to me, too: You hear about the rules of the scientific method ... and then trusting the outputs of computer models with poor or no support from findings. I do generally like the "lessons" from Sabine, which is why the surprise: I asked for an explanation, but probably it would be hard for somebody to go against the stream.
You arrive at this conclusion from first principles. CO2 blocks certain wavelenghts in the IR Band. Unfortunately, these are also the wavelengths of the thermal reemissions from the earth. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more of this radiation cannot escape into space, which in turn warms the atmosphere. @ hxhdfj ifzir st c True, the climate has never been static. It will change in the future, human influenced or not. The problem is, this now a political/religious subject, with people exploiting it for wealth and power. Too many people are too uneducated to distinguish between the bullshit and real science. Add in fear of the world "ending" in X years and you arrive at the climate cults you see now. And yes, this *is* already being used to justify new levels of totalitarian control. The term eco-fascist comes to mind.
I believe that there was an error in the discussion of the remaining carbon budget to remain within the 1.5 C degree warming range. The video states that we need to reduce our annual carbon output from 40 GT to 20 GT per year. However, the amount of warming is determined by the total excess accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere not merely by the output of a single year. The carbonbrief site presents estimates for the remaining carbon budget for the planet to hold warming to 1.5 C or less. If memory serves, the estimates range from -140 GT to about 300 GT, with the median being about 150 GT or so. To be clear, a budget of 150 GT would be met with just four years of current output. The requirement for reduction in emissions and for carbon are therefore substantially more urgent than what is implied in the video.
You know... I had a professor in grad school that was one of the wisest professors I ever knew. He taught statistical mechanics. 1 of the best lessons I ever learned from him was to make sure that you actually have a problem that needs solved before you set about solving it.
The CO2 levels were 17 times higher in the Jurassic era. We know this because of fossilized trees. We gotta long way to go before we hit that tipping point. Even if we burned up everything that we currently have access to, we wouldn't do much (half a degree according to their math). After we are finished with that, we'll quickly go back to pre-industrial populations. Everyone will have to murder about 20 people because we get our fertilizer from oil (Haber/Bosch Process). As for the Elon Musk Prize, someone needs to tell that guy we have trees and bacteria that can do that better than we can ever do it.
The trees can only store the carbon in the plant it self and this is not so much. Its a frequently missunderstanding that trees produce oxygen and absorb carbondioxide. This is only true on day time. But in the night the process reverses and there is no net win.
@@halloalle2588 As a net trees absorb more and then store them as wood fiber, so to make it a real carbon sink you can grow them, chop them off, use them for some permanent structure or dump them somewhere it won't rot.
@@maggiejetson7904 There is no permanent store. Its only a delay. This is also a frequently misunderstanding. Even over Millions of years it can only work if you never use oil, gas or coal. But without that there will no solar or wind tech exist. Take in mind the fiasko in Germany...
The prize, and Sabine's treatment here, highlight an important issue: that a lot of what people call "climate denialism" is in fact an objection to an unhelpful attitude that plagues environmentalism: a kind of moralistic species-level self-loathing that demands not only solutions to the problem but *ideologically acceptable* solutions. This explains both the general level of anti-technology sentiment in the field and the specific (and nonsensical given the facts) absolute rejection of nuclear power as a stopgap technology. IMO the correct attitude is this: the environment is now (that we can't passively solve it) an engineering problem. Without all that ideological nonsense, we're perfectly capable of dealing with it because human beings are, in the long run, unstoppable when it comes to engineering problems. We must be extremely careful because solutions all involve deliberate interference in extremely complex systems that we don't understand, but that's not an excuse to do nothing and it's not an excuse to reject specific solutions on ideological grounds. The stakes are way too high for that.
9:28 … I am a bit surprised that the technique of ‘weathering minerals’ in oceans is not mentioned. This weathering technique was only mentioned for use on land but actually also works in water. Of course there are still some problems of location choice, possible impact on marine life and some technical issues. The mineral Olivine is a good candidate for the job and oceans look like more efficient places than land because of the much better surface:volume proportion. The idea is to bind and incorporate the CO2 into the mineral and sink it off… maybe those ocean troughs could come in handy ? As for the geochemical aspect of change of the water it looks that the reduction of the acidification of the water is a major advantage. This olivine, actually a basalt derivative, could be used in the building of water structures like dikes and artificial river constructs and shore enforcements, artificial islands as well as securing existing islands that are under pressure of rising sea level. However all those mentioned techniques should be used as part of a global solution in conjunction with the main problem of actually reducing the production in order to reverse the global balance.
It sounds like the process of sequestering CO2 in Olivine gives off a good deal of heat. For the vast amount of CO2 we have to remove from the atmosphere, I have to imagine this would create a great deal of heat in the oceans; but maybe it's not enough to make an impact on the temperature of that volume of water? There are claims that the sequestration of CO2 in Olivine could produce enough heat to be used as an energy source; so generating power / heat while reducing CO2. Although, I imagine the logistics of gathering the Olivine and the CO2 may make this a pointless venture.
Sabine, the shapes on your background image seem so familiar, what are they exactly? Your videos, they're clear and understandable even for a layman like me. Greetings from the Netherlands.
In line with the fertilization method, whales are composed of a huge amount of carbon. Doing more to increase whale populations stores that carbon in their bodies during their lives and takes it out of the atmospheric system as they die and sink to deep water, whereas trees would re-emit that carbon after they die. They also sink fairly quickly. Surface scavengers usually only reabsorb a small amount of a whale before it sinks, compared to algae, which is constantly being consumed, in large part by whales and the plankton the feed on. One whale is equivalent to about 1500 trees and stores biomass somewhere other than land area we could be using for other things that trees would take up.
Since my understanding of thermodynamics is rather rusty, maybe Sabine should do it instead, but I have been thinking for a long time now about this one problem: showing that the Laws of Thermodynamics themselves dictate that *any* method of carbon capture is going to be expensive and difficult. Why? The short version (and for me, so far the only version) is that going the other way, burning carbon, is so cheap and effective *precisely* because this is the easy path, like going downhill. Going the other way, as carbon capture demands, is going up the hill we found it so easy to go down for so many years! I have been thinking about this, though, specifically for the case of carbon "capture and storage". That first step, capturing the CO2 of the fossil fuel you burn, is the hard one, the step that is going back up hill, drastically reducing how much energy you can get out of your fossil fuel and so defeating the whole purpose.
Not necessarily, if you want to capture CO2 and then split Carbon from Oxygen, release Oxygen and store only Carbon then yes you will need to use equal of more energy then was produced when CO2 was produced. If however you want to just capture CO2 and store it whole then it could be probably done much easier. Alternatively you can use some process like solar or nuclear that do not produce CO2 to power splitting of CO2, for instance Sabine here mentioned that extraction of CO2 from water requires heating it up, you can easily do it with solar concentrating power plant, aka giant mirror that focuses sunlight on some evaporation unit(not perfect example as this probably just separates CO2 and water, but you probably get the point).
You're right; you are going against thermodynamics. As Belisarian points out, it could be worse; at least we aren't trying to run the combustion reaction backwards. However, grabbing that hot CO2 out of the flue gas is going to cost you entropically, as well as financially. There's a reason you don't see much CCS. It's not particularly economical.
first, remove their ability to suck blood or we're gonna have malaria and dengue spikes up the ass in every corner of the world. Second, we're gonna get an awful lot of small frogs and lizards and they're gonna lay waste to other insects, I hope important ones don't get impacted.
maybe we could try reforesting all the lands that have been intentionally deforested as a carbon capture plan - then would have 20 year harvesting cycles for lumber, which remains one of the most miraculous, versatile construction materials that exist
Must say I’m very disappointed in this presentation, What I’ve always appreciated about Sabina is her unrelenting scientific scepticism and unfiltered criticism of expensive schemes such as building a bigger collider . In this case the 50 million dollar question isn’t how to build mega carbon sequestration technology , but maybe just maybe : should we?
Yes. We will waste trillions of dollars to curb the panic of climate hysteria. Meanwhile the earth gets greener and 2 C warmer, which will be a good thing for 99% of humanity.
Dear Dr. Hossenfelder, Many thanks for time and great job. I am a fan of your video programs and enjoy watching them times and times. I would be grateful if you could advice me how to express this information officially in an article as it is not customary to reference to a video.
Idea for future video: the technologies around dealing with rising ocean levels, such as Venice's Mose sea wall and beach erosion efforts. As usual, this video was amazingly clear and succinct.
They really do it in a cycle with not much net outcome. Unless you fossilize trees into coal. Sabine correctly said, that it is basically one shot effect when you increase overall tree coverage. Not that it will continue producing
And the trees are on decline. Global terrestrial photosynthesis is expected to drop to below 50% within 20 to 30 years. Phytoplankton decreased by 40% from 1950 to 2010, I'd say we are in deep deep doodoo.
@@pedrolmlkzk See "Earth to reach temperature tipping point in next 20 to 30 years, new study finds. on Science Daily dot com Katharyn A. Duffy was interviewed on Radio Ecoshock if interested. Trees and vegetation are dyubg in many areas. Even the Canadian boreal gorest is about to switch from carbon sink to carbon source. In 2010 Scientific American published an article saying that 40% of phytoplankton had vanished sine 1950. The Amazon ia mow a carbon source as many other areas.
The real problem here is that we are looking at this the completely the wrong way. Rather than recognizing the destructive nature of human technological, industrial and capitalistic society, and adjusting our system accordingly towards an ecological society. We instead think that we can keep living our lavish lifestyles and expect 8 billion people to do so in the coming years while thinking some random buildings will save us. This is not going to work, this is just a small patch and isn't attacking the root of the problem.
Haters gonna hate. You probably hide under a rock every time a SpaceX rocket lands or Tesla doubles its production from the previous year. Good for you I suppose. 🤷🏻♂️
I think I deserve the prize. My great plan is to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere to 0.06%. (600ppm). Thus the trees, lichens and all greens will be better fed, grow faster and bigger and in areas presently covered. This will lead to far more green storage of the carbon. When thus grown it will be possible to burn wood in place of oil. And, as a bonus, the trees would love the better .006% diet!
It always cracks me up to hear people reference "cost" in these contexts. Money is 100% not real. "Cost" would be more accurately reflected as "remaining lifespan of human civilization if we do not act". Imagine finding a solution and being like "well, we can't do this because it would CoSt ToO MuCh mONEy"
@@mekuranda It does work to maintain healthy soil if certain conditions can be met and marginally reduce some of the CO2 emissions locally, but that's about it. The real problem is replicability. And if you cannot accomplish that worldwide, the measure is pretty much ineffective for CO2. One thing is what can be achieved theoretically, and one very different is what would be feasible. So, my point is, if you sell an idea as a panacea, you will fail miserably and do more harm in the process, since you'll be wasting resources by trying to do something "proven" in one location, that will never work in another. As for the "proof that it doesn't", the idea has been around since the 60's. Is the CO2 problem solved? No. So, there's your proof. If you don't believe me, here are some: 1) Monbiot, George (4 August 2014). "Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-10-28. 2) Briske, D. D. "Origin, Persistence, and Resolution of the Rotational Grazing Debate: Integrating Human Dimensions Into Rangeland Research" (PDF). Rangeland Ecol Manage 64:325-334. Retrieved 6 April 2013. 3) Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Brown, J.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Teague, W.R.; Havstad, K.M.; Gillen, R.L.; Ash, A.J.; Willms, W.D. (2008). "Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence". Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61: 3-17. doi:10.2111/06-159R.1. hdl:10150/642920.
Capturing CO2 is not the solution, it's a Sisyphean task. The more you capture, the more gets released by others, who don't care about the environment or might even benefit from capturing it again. Or why do you think it is, that petrol companies are investing in CO2-capture technology?
Great challenge by Musk! I'd like to nominate the no till farming movement, their approach can double or even tripple carbon storage in soil and of course vegans!
Given the current temperature rise rate is ~0.2 deg per decade and we are already well over 1 degree of warming, it looks likely that we will hit 1.5 degrees around 2040 (15 years time) whatever we do. It would be great to have a video on the impacts we can expect on that timeline and the actions that need to be prioritised. For example, which comes first - sea defences, agricultural resilience, household cooling in the tropics etc? It seems few people are looking at the practical problem of adaptation in parallel with mitigation efforts.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
What climate change question do you want me to look into for you? Please leave suggestions in the comments.
What is the fate of artificial islands in the face of climate change?
Why do the IPCC models continue to predict temperature wrong? Our observations indicate a much lower climate sensitivity , and why are only independent researchers talking about it?
When in situations where "avoid" isn't an option, how to talk to those convinced climate change is a hoax.
Only floating, anchored communities will be immune to rising sea levels. If they're designed to withstand the fiercest hurricane winds, then they should fare better than coastal cities.
The policies (and their execution) and carbon trade might be the majority change makers in climate change but upto what extent can a tech or device help in reducing/capturing GHG emissions?
PS: I'm asking this because any technological solution which is physical and deployed at such massive level would take up its own space and energy, have its own carbon footprint. On the other hand, policies are just agreement to carry out current procedures a bit differently (essentially a non materialistic approach)
Fantastic job finding all this information and summarising it so succinctly. I have no idea how you can make great videos so quickly, but thank you for doing it!
She has a friend, Tim Palmer, who is a former physicist, now leading climatologist.
I had very competent help with this one. Also, it's been in the works for months!
@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you for your effort Sabine
Hey Looking Glass Universe! Love your videos, too!
You have just witnessed yet another Nazti Neo World Order Sales-Preachers of the Uber-Science variety... I used to respect her for her anti-LHC (2) stance, but even that is slipping as she gets sucked into the fake-green mega-liberal globalist forced sustainable profits scam.. Forced obsolescence, continuous 'renewable' junk power sales... You Lithium + Neodymium economy stinks compared Iron, aluminium + carbohydrate economy... Climate 'Prediction' is an insult to Science.. no better than the Sozial Sciences when it comes to mass population manipulation by a load of bullshitting zealous NWO fanatics... Scientism is the neo religion for La La Lander sheeple-parrot guinea pig morons - that think they're riotous, like deluded Christains of old...
You might like to read this def; '' "Sabine women" in Latin. The Sabine were an ancient Italian tribe. 5s are explorers who love to connect with others. Curious and impulsive, they're free-spirited, enjoy travelling, and adapt easily to new situations ''. In some ancient Arabic it means; a case of randomness and unease. Hope you like that as it captures some of your character in my opinion. Best wishes.. for magnificent work.
Finally a use for those extra dimensions that are just curling around and doing nothing productive.
My thoughts exactly. Of course I planned to be sarcastic as I am no longer a fan of the string theory and supersymmetry.
Grow hemp, make it into fiber, wrap the fiber around the extra dimensions, wallah carbon capture. Where's our $25million each? The only problem I can think of is that Schrodinger's cat is gonna keep trying to unravel it.
@@TonyApuzzo $25m each? I'll sue you about my 1/3!
You flunked physics, didn't you?
@@arctic_haze THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA:
TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!!
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.
GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
Sabine has a way of explaining complex subjects in a manner accessible to most people with average intelligence. No annoying music and no theatrics, the way it should be done.
Why people think adding music to info videos as a good idea is beyond me. Its the quickest way to get people not to watch
Thousands of people have vomited up this trite pandering compliment already.
to me this is a virtue of true brilliance; taking rocket science and bringing it to a level even ants could consume.
Let's not forget the wit injected at unpredictable intervals. I love the reference to the carbon sink currently floating in our oceans.
Assuming you also have average intelligence I like your comment.
If water -> help trees, captures co2 and is a green house gas, that can be made into a liquid at attainable pressure and temperature maybe we should start creating wetlands with the help of industry. +Food production +decrease desertification -water wars + atmospheric manipulation(more predictable weather) ect. I can't believe we as a some what developed fish can't make water and talk about water war and day zero and instead we make plastic. Thank you Sabine for all of you, i look up to you.
Love,
Random Swedish engineer.
You had me at "...by dumping dead people into the deep sea where they won't rot".
Yes, but when those zombies awaken the CO2 will rise from the dead 💀
Even though trees are "Too expensive" maybe we need to go back to living IN the trees - solve the housing crisis AND the Carbon Dioxide problem. We'll just genetically engineer trees to be more "Useful" and coat them in fungicides and unrecyclable plastics so they could never rot - what could possibly go wrong ~ Do not google "Day of the Triffids" .
Mollusks are very good at making solid calcium carbonate shells. The shells could be placed on the deep sea floor far from subduction zones. Existing aquaculture methods could be used.
Problems exist with this idea however, as the waste products of the organism are a pollutant.
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 I was thinking a similar thing - CO(subscript 2) to limestone / calcium carbonate. The Romans did an incredible amount with limestone/ lime derivatives*. And +1 on the biological solution (as I don't think there are practicable "man made" viable synthetic / engineered solutions]. Although the Chinese have need of artificial islands; Nuclear powered de-salination plants that produce fresh water AND remove Carbon Dioxide AND make billions of tons of limestone ~ I think there needs to be a $ viable bi-product to offset rather than having the process be x amount of $s or less per ton. [@James Driscol_tmp the Mediterranean is having a whale of a time with it's seaweed/snail problem.].
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
* Seems concrete as used in buildings and civil engineering projects (Portland cement based processes ) are a significant contributor to the atmospheric (CO₂ ) ~ Wonder if stuff based on lime - Roman style - with a 2020s twist would help reduce that ? [Make lime/limestone from CO₂ and Calcium (based complexes) and partially reduce Portland cement usage ? - need to check out the final chemistry for that see how it balances out.].
If you dump top management of oil companies, you will win the prize, because the carbon will stay in a safe place underground for millions of years for $0 per tone.
Sabine,
Awesome video! Some feedback:
#1) I think it's worth mentioning the Azolla Event in which atmospheric carbon was reduced (leading to the ice ages with humanity). A lot of oil companies actually wanted to develop the Arctic because in theory there are loads of carbon stored there (though it might be all kerogen). It is some evidence of ocean fertilization (in that case slit + fresh water) working. I'm amazed how few people know about it (and it might surprise many to find that before this the CO2 concentration was generally >1000ppm; there is a reason why your dinosaur museums don't have any snow, the Earth geologically speaking usually doesn't have ice caps!). Ironically Azolla still grows today but unfortunately we don't have a massive nutrient rich semi fresh/semi saline environment.
#2) Ocean storage of CO2, beneath the ocean at cold temperatures you form these cool CO2 hydrates (ices) that will essentially sequester. Very cool physics with hydrates!!! At 0C and 30000kPag (hydrostatic pressure at 3km) the ocean can be >10% liquid CO2 without hydrates. Instead of heating, just move the CO2 water down there by low energy turbine. Way WAY less energy than heating and/or compression.
#3) Algae storage - my personal favorite is Sargassum. It floats and is big, easy to filter and capture. Ironically when fertilizer builds up out of the Mississippi and the Amazon and the temps are right BOOM - Sargassum invasion of the beaches! Let's go get it. This might help stop hurricanes from your earlier videos if we did those plumes on purpose!
#4) With biochar the other 50% is fuel that you can upgrade. You upgrade it (sorry, not going to publicly tell you how to avoid all that coke!) and sell the fuels balancing the carbon cycle at a profit while you sequester CO2. Now you have a profitable carbon sequestration option.
#5) With carbon engineering it takes energy to power those fans and I still don't get what they are going to do with the CO2. Carbon capture with amine is cool, but you need to compress the CO2 with power. Annoying. Clean Energy Systems though has a cool oxyfired combuster with a turbine and then they are sequestering the CO2, pretty cool. In Alberta and Sask we have a couple CO2 sequestration projects but you need reservoirs that can store the CO2 (not always nearby). Ocean works but you have a gas generally in these cases and who wants to compress to 10000kPag to overcome hydrostatic pressure?
#6) Don't forget your super cool chemolithoautotrophic organisms! Here you use H2S (that's right, hydrogen sulfide) and oxygen reduced by bacteria to make biomass. Then you make some fuels by hydrothermal liquid faction and then pump the organics and sulfates under ground where geothermal heat and anaerobic digestion make H2S again and you get to cycle the H2S. Unfortunately it is much easier to have concrete with CO2. The Western Research Institute actually has a patent on the CAT process. I have seen these organisms (the bacteria of which is usually in tubeworms under the ocean) used for sweetening natural gas. Some cool physics there, some have said that this might be how life would develop with the sulphur cycle on other planets (though you still need oxygen for reduction, so go figure).
As for wealth of knowledge, you are the 1%.
Bro go to the competition and save our planet dude
wow someone actually wrote all these on a youtube comment
Thanks for making that valuable information available. Now let's go, dig the stuff up and burn it. What could possibly go wrong?
The dimensions of SPACE are ALL CLEARLY balanced, AS E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
By Frank DiMeglio
One of my ideas is "lateral levies". Dig trenches perpendicular to rivers and streams, using the dirt to make a very short levy to the downstream side of each trench. Fill the trenches with carbon-absorbing gravel (water activates the process).
There's a bit more, but the effect is to guarantee a small amount of flooding (to the spillways) but prevent anything damaging.
This inverts the current system, where your levy sends water downstream, guaranteeing serious flooding downstream, resulting in an 'arms race' to build the highest levy; instead, your levy protects your downstream neighbors, recharges aquifers, keeps rivers flowing year round, fertilizes the land, and removes carbon from the atmosphere.
Since the ancillary services are worth more than the cost, lateral levies remove carbon at negative cost.
"Flood like an Egyptian"
Storing CO2 in rocks is not as easy as just pouring water onto it. If you flood your trenches, the rocks aren't in contact with the CO2 contained in the air. This process requires rain like pouring.
Floodplanes like these are widely in use, popularized by the Dutch way of doing water management, FYI!
Sans the carbon capture.
I moved to Germany, and it is interesting to see the idea make its way up the rivers. Who would have thunk that if water has a place to go, it won't end up in residential areas. :D
I don't have a new idea, I've heard it elsewhere but a much faster plant for capturing carbon is bamboo which, being a grass, grows very fast. Some tropical bamboos are thick and strong enough to use for construction and they can also be steam processed into boards and planks for flooring etc. You can grow a crop of bamboo, harvest it, grow another crop and harvest it over and over again in the time that it takes to grow one stand of softwood trees. Once the bamboo is part of a building its carbon is locked up for decades at least.
or dump in the ocean
I think Blue Planet was where I heard that sea grasses are the largest single carbon sink on the planet, other than ocean water, itself. It might be interesting to find a way to grow more of that. Might be useful as a food source or, as above, a faster way to sink carbon into deep water.
Hi Sabine, I'm right in the middle of CCS right now. The high end of the full chain costs is in all honesty a bit more than you stated ... about 50 - 150. I couldn't place your statement about water consumption, though. There are some 50 projects ongoing in Europe right now. But at best a few will be onstream '26 and many wont be before '30. I always introduce CCS by saying ... "if we want carbon to be stored in teh ground, the first and cheapest thing you should do is not take it out of the ground in the first place". Effciiency and redcued consumption is king..More lately I have moved on to saying ... "the time for debating what's best is past. We have to get on and do what we can and do it today. We can do CCS today". Musk has always championed the idea that he's not daugnted by costs unless they have to be reduced by more than a factor 10 PROVIDED THAT thermodynamics do not limit. People who are getting after new ways to meet this challenge really must take that into account for their full chain. Good luck.
I dig your deadpan humor, thanks for the video!
Great summary!
Re enhanced weathering: My understanding is that one doesn't 'artificially create' the absorbing minerals, but one just digs them out of the ground. To start with, millions or probably billions of tons of existing mine tailings *already* could be ground and distributed to take up CO2.
True in principle, but the grinding and transport are more expensive than the digging. Also, rock that's worth mining tends to have various elements in it that aren't great to release into the environment. So there's probably some that's worth processing, but mostly it's best to use ultramafic rock that's not worth mining but gives the best value in CO2 absorbed per dollar spent on grinding.
Plant trees, reduce agricultural land usage, further protected natural habitats, reduce individual transportation and further the public version, etc.
Where are my 50 million?
Trees are a proxy for plants. The key is maximizing biomass production per unit area. Aquatic plants produce far more biomass than terrestrial plants (up to 7X). I did experiments to measure biomass production in 2009-10 in connection with wastewater treatment. One of the key factors to consider is ease of harvest. Algae is produces the most biomass by far, but is hard to remove and produces eutrophic lakes when it falls to the bottom. (The bottom strata of the lake become oxygen poor killing benthic organisms and disrupting the food chain). Macro algae is a better option for ease of harvest. There is some very good research at the Salk Institute in the area of biosequestration (Joanne Chory). I think she has a lock on the $50M prize.
Thanks for that explanation.
And what would you do with this biomass to prevent it rotting ?
@@dmitripogosian5084 The key is to harvest and process quickly before decay takes over. Macro algae are easier to harvest than micro algae.
"it's like you elected someone out of office and now they're really pissed off, but they've got six weeks left on the job and nothing you can do about that" LOL!
Thank you Sabine that was really cool to learn and you are awesome to learn from. Much love.
Purely technological solutions tend to have unanticipated and often unpleasant consequences. Please, think the whole thing through before building.
Indeed, a most excellent point.
I am not sure, I would agree with "often", but otherwise, yes, there could be unpleasant consequences. But, we're under a lot of pressure and have very little time left. Not doing anything would likely be far worse than whatever unpleasant consequences might occur. The consequences of global warming may well lead to the mass extinction of all higher lifeforms on our planet. I'd say that's about the worst consequence imaginable. So we can't afford to be picky or take our sweet time in dealing with the problem. Given human nature I also think that it is unlikely that we can get a sufficient number of people to change their behavior. So, if we find any cost effective solution to extract a large amount of CO² from the earth's atmosphere that would be fortunate indeed. Bold and swift action is what we need!
yeah, I have put in a lot of thought into it. A technological solution at such mass level won't be viable and as good as estimated would say since the stuff involved is physical and making that stuff takes material and energy at every step of the process.
Economics, carbon trade and policies are best suited for such mass level problems but the problem with them is their poor execution and practitioner's lack of integrity.
@@ruschein A rushed solution is a poor solution. Several countries rushed to plant new trees to offset their carbon emissions. They planted the wrong kind of trees in the wrong places which resulted in large forest fires making the situation worse. Take your time and get it right.
The unpleasant consequences also tend to happen to someone other than those implementing the solution.
I heard that coal actually came from a period of time when plants figured out lignans, but bacteria, etc, hadn't yet figured out their digestion. A once-in-a-"life"-time event.
Exactly where we are with plastics.. bacteria will 'figure' it out too.
@@notlessgrossman163 if they don’t actually engineer a bacteria to do so, I hear they are working on it.
Correct. When plants started using lignin, then no natural process could break it down, so dead plants just piled up while CO2 plummeted. Life on earth got very close to being wiped out. Luckily a type of fungi emerged and started to break down the plants to release CO2. The exact same thing is happening right now, but with calcium carbonates instead. It comes from dead sea animals piling up on the ocean floor, and nothing can break them down. CO2 has steadily dropped over the eons because of this. If nothing emerges the planet is heading for mass extinction. Luckily a species called humans emerged who are now restoring CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
That's only partly true. Specifically for the coal from Carboniferous era. A significant portion of coal is a bit younger. It comes from places where plant matter accumulates faster than it decomposes, forming peat (a precursor of coal).
@@BjornMoren Concerning lignin. that's right. But I have never heard, that the accumultion of dead wood during Carboniferous led to any extinctions. On the contrary, the level of oxygen in the athmosphere was much higher than today, which led to the proliferation of various land dwelling Arthropods, in particular insects. The first dragonflies appeared then and reached increadible size (up to a half meter length), apparently because the high concentration of oxygen allowed it to penetrate deeper into their exoskeleton. Insects have no active breathe organs and rely on passive gas exchange.
Concerning that calcium carbonated accumulating from dead animals on the ocean floor represents a dangerous sink for athmospheric carbon, which drives biosphere to yet another extinction, I also hear such things the first time. In fact, those animals with the shells made of calcium carbonate exist on Earth already 500 million years (since Cambrian). A lot of carbon dioxid cycles had passed since then and a lot of extinctions happened (actually all known), but that those shells were somehow involved in such things says no one. I just googled for that and can find nothing. Moreover, if those dead shells were indeed a substantial way to remove CO2 from the athmosphere, after 500 millions years of that process, there would be no CO2 left at all now.
What I have found, actually, is a Wikipedia article that very detaily describes full carbon cycle happening on Earth:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
Those calcium carbonate sediments sink further into Earth mantle and, then, ultimately get back on the surface. In fact, the top of Everest mountain consists of those sediments.
Amazingly succinct video!
Is scalability not a consideration? The mineral solution is $10/T, which seems awfully cheap, but not practical to remove 20GT per year globally.
I don't believe that the $10/Ton figure could be correct. If this were the case, the cost of beating climate change would only be $20B/year. That's equivalent to $4 from every person in the world, and the US alone would be able to solve the problem without increasing their budget by more than 0.4%, with basically no change to the everyday lives of people around the world.
Build a carbon capture technology around hydrothermal vents, on the bottom of the ocean. At least, you've got free geothermal energy
That would make absolutely no sense because CO2 in cold water is about 100 times more soluble than in warm water so seal to release near these vents is exactly what we see and what you would see if you were to deposit more CO2 in these areas
Nothing new under the sun. Closed Co2 Loop, Cause and effect temp rises first co2 follows. Forcing and green house effect are like putting the cart before the horse not cause and effect. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from the galactic Nucleus/Bulge via the sun to us. Co2 Plus H2O captures the EM energy of the Galaxy via the Sun and creates life. Taxing CO2 is tantamount to taxing the EM energy of the Galaxy/Sun past present and future.
Jesus had FAITH in HUMANITY, it is time for HUMANITY to have faith in themselves and JESUS or be condemned to the BIT-HU-MAN pits of hell only to be released by fire.
The Galactic Milankovitch cycles cause our climate cycles.
Eccentricity; 240,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge,
Obliquity 60,000 years between Aphelion Ice age and Perihelion tropical age
Precession 26,000 cycle every 12,000 years our solar system crosses over our galaxies electromagnetic gravitational plane for a 1,000 years causing EMP plasma bursts (pillars of Fire), Oort cloud comets, and global east to west cataclysmic Tsunami deluges.
Covid like CO2 is a comfortable LIE built upon an inconvenient truth.
The Baby Boomers who were born en mass 76 years ago are starting to die en mass from the usual suspects of seasonal Flu which leads to pneumonia and old age.
The Covid MASK of the BEAST to BUY or SELL is a pretext for the Heavy metal vaccine of the BEAST combined with 5G microwave oven towers depopulation FINAL SOLUTION before the Great Year Resets to planet with E-W Tidal waves.
China's "One Child policy" in western christian democracies is Abortion, LGBTQ, Euthanasia, Sterilization, Sex changes and anti children propaganda etc.
BLM/ALM is a divide and conquer humanity by race creed and religion.
Jesus loved all races because there is only one race, the HUMAN race with only one minority the INDIVIDUAL human. Slave is equal to master. Love your neighbor like your brother, because he is your brother in the human race.
We all came from our mothers as equals. We are all the sum of our life's experiences and teachings.
Grade 5 science could debunk CO2 caused climate cycles. Cause and effect and closed loop.
Temperature is rising first and CO2 follows as the Arctic thaws due to Obliquity and Precession.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All EM energy comes from and or returns to the electromagnetic double torus we call the galactic Nucleus/Bulge.
Earth is a closed CO2 loop
@@GregoryJByrne Thanks for the global overview of nearly everything - I had no clue...
But this one "Earth is a closed CO2 loop" is slightly off topic!
@@TheCommono we are in the END TIMES and being LIED to I don't think anything is off topic. Wake Up.
Grade 5 science could debunk CO2 caused climate change. Cause and effect and closed loop.
Temp is rising first and CO2 follows, cause and effect.
Earth is a closed loop that self regulates Co2 with life by combining CO2 with H2O to capture the EM Energy of the galaxies Double Torus via the Sun.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from and or returns to the galaxies double torus magnet via the Sun to Us.
Covid like CO2 is a comfortable LIE built upon an inconvenient truth.
The Baby Boomers who were born en mass 76 years ago are starting to die en mass form the usual suspects of seasonal FLu which leads to Pneumonia and old age.
Anybody enforcing these Illegal unjust MASK of the BEAST mandates to Buy or Sell are MASK NAZI's!
The MASK of the BEAST to Buy or Sell is a pretext for the FINAL SOLUTION heavy metal vacc + 5G before the END TIMES.
It takes 10 years to develop a vacc IF and only IF you can isolate the virus. What variant are they on now? 5th because it is the Seasonal Flu, Baby Boomer Bust and we are in the 5th N-S seasonal Flu season.
Climate change is has and will always be caused by the GALACTIC Milankovitch cycles.
Eccentricity the 240,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge causes our water planet to trend from Aphelion ice age to Perihelion tropical age every 60,000 years Obliquity. We are at Event 201,000.
Precession causes the END TIMES every 12,000 years when our solar system passes crosses over the center of our galaxies Double Torus Magnet, for a 1,000 years causing EMP plasma burst, Oort cloud comet impacts and global east to west cataclysmic Tsunami Mud floods. NOW for the next Millennia.
The Last time our solar system crossed our galaxies electromagnetic gravitational plane was some 12,000 years ago Younger Dryas, Clovis people & Gobekli Tepe.
Don't let yourselves be divided & conquered along race creed and religious lines by these evil people/families at the top of the global pyramid who own and control the Media and Money in this the END TIMES.
One child, LGBTQ, Abortion, Sex change, Sterilization, Euthanasia are all DEPOPULATION before the Great Year Resets our planet in these the END TIMES.
Jesus loved all races because there is only one race with only one minority, the HUMAN race and INDIVIDUAL human.
It makes more sense not only to measure the efficiency using cost/ton, but (carbon footprint)/ton.
I imagine that you have to substact the carbon footprint from the ton of extracted CO2.
@@erwile then the efficiency may become negligible. You can read about this in the book by Bill Gates "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". It's not a viable approach.
@@KeithZSD I don't know what I'm missing. If you emit 1 T of CO2 for 10T of extraction, the effective CO2 deficit is 9T. Ok maybe I see your point, with CO2 efficiency you can know how it scales, a high efficiency has great potential, because otherwise you can emit a lot for a little CO2 deficit overall.
@@KeithZSD How is it not viable to subtract the carbon footprint from the mass of extracted CO2? How else would you do it?
I appreciate the humor you bring to this presentation. Sometimes the fog of hopefulness needs to be dispelled. Most fans of such technologies are desperately grasping at straws and are blind to criticisms. Few have encountered the following headlines that I encourage viewers to search for.
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change'
UN Chief warns countries that the 'point of no return' on climate change is fast approaching
UN warns that world risks becoming 'uninhabitable hell' for millions unless leaders take climate action
The planet is on a 'catastrophic' global warming path, UN report shows
I’ve always been a fan of planting more trees, regardless of CO2. If plants absorb CO2, and sea water absorbs CO2, what about increasing plant life in the sea? Or, is that how the sea is already able to absorb more carbon dioxide?
Don't you think increasing plant life in the sea would disturb the ecosystem?
Was mentioned by Sabine pay attention
@@svtrader I have no idea, would it?
@@SteveWeiserOnRUclips I don't know either. Do some research and get back to me.
@@svtrader I probably won't be doing that. Personally, I don't really give a shit about CO2, since a) I don't think it's an actual problem, and b) if it was, we're not causing it. I just like trees. Besides, according to Ingrid, Sabine mentions it in the video.
Genetially modified coral designed for carbon capture. You end up with coral rock and reduce the ocean's acidity and remove Co2 from the air.
Feel free to submit it!
On the right track with genitals, best way is doing something to reduce population, that's by far the biggest cause of not just carbon problems in the world.
Get Cracking!
Hi Sabine,
I enjoy and value your youtube content.
I am an amateur scientist / engineer. I have worked primarily in the computer/electronics software and hardware industry.
I am writing you because you approach with an open mind, are clearly highly educated, and don't fall for knee-jerk conclusions.
I have these interesting thoughts...
One of them years ago was when I became aware that california ground water levels were dropping so dramatically.
Of course their are several factors at play. One oddball one that entered my mind was that they ship so much food out of state. And food is mainly composed of water.
I never did crunch the numbers on this.
Now, an issue that is dramatically more important has entered my mind.
I do not have access to the specialists required to properly consider such a 'hypothesis'.
Now with regards to carbon capture.
I have heard that one of the prevailing techniques is to inject the atmospheric gas into rock formations.
Right to the point - are we not also fixing in place oxygen as well as carbon.
Many people seem to simply think - well, Kim, plants make oxygen.
As you know, this is not so.
This could be a serious issue - I am not sure. And surely, no one of significance will listen to me - I am not a 'certified' scientist.
As far as I understand, the oxygen we have is the oxygen we have.
It may cycle between different chemical combinations - but the amount is mostly/entirely fixed.
What happens when we large scale pump it into rock (along with the carbon) fixing it there forever.
Should we not consider this now.
Regards and Thanks
The CO2 was emitted through burning which liberated energy, so wouldn't any form of carbon capture require a greater amount of energy? It seems like the technology is doomed to be cost ineffective.
Nope. While fossil fuels are indeed energy-rich, you don't have to convert it back into the original fuel, just any stable substance that binds carbon atoms. There are far less energy-intensive options.
@@martir.7653 True, but the CO2 is also at a high state of entropy. So you are going to spend energy gathering it.
You have to either break it apart from the oxygen, or store it as compressed gas or dry ice. Both options require a lot of energy, because both export entropy.
Is it possible to accurately quantify the greenhouse effects (warming effects in the atmosphere) of CO2, CH4 and H2O, separately for each of the gasses?
Edit for clarification:
What I have in mind is this:
a) absolute quantities of each of the gasses in the atmosphere
b) absolute quantities of heat each of them traps in the atmosphere as a whole
c) how much heat each of them traps relative to the others
The c) is clearly the most interesting metric and the most relevant to the discussion.
I do believe this has been done. You can inject these gasses individually in small scale greenhouses and measure their effects. I think methane comes out on top!
What you're looking for is Global Warming Potential. Wikipedia has a good article on it. The answer depends on time frame and total emissions. For example, CO2 has less GWP per tonne, but we emit a lot more of it per year, and it lasts longer in the atmosphere than methane does.
@@watchfantic wikipedia is no serious scientific ressource!
@@scp3178 Yes, I agree with Duncan Hicks here, the Wikipedia-article on GWP is both good and quite useful.
GWP values are estimations, often used in engineering, for example when deciding which cooling media to use, or for estimating the environmental impact from something.
Omg how could yt hide a gem like this channel from me, the commentary got me good, super glad to have found it.
Anti fart seaweed for cows is in testing, reduces farts by 80 percent I think.
That'll be for reducing Methane, surely?
just add an afterburner to every cow
@@gh8447 Yes
@@LPneptun OMG, make sure its a full-flow staged combustion engine😜
Just recently I have watched a documentary about the Cloud brightening project conducted by the Southern Cross University’s National Marine Science Centre in Coffs Harbour. Basically the aim of this project is to 'force' the incoming sunlight to be reflected back into space. I'd like to know more about the potential outcome when doing this on a global scale. Also, I'd like to know about the risk and harm this could have for our environment.
This is one of the cascade effect of global-warming that will accelerate once we reach a certain point. Snow does this exact job of reflecting light back into space. Warmer winters and decreasing glacial ice cover means the earth receives more direct warming from the sun than it did previously and further speeds up the process of global-warming.
Sounds risky.
Also I feel like using that light instead of lightbulbs would be better
I'm a newer subscriber and am eager to hear her evaluation of geoengineering.
How bout 2 square meter of foil glued to a wood frame on every house in world,
Best cover photo of you yet ! Thank for report
I'm also sponsoring a prize but for the best Oxygen Capture technology instead since I'm a supervillain billionaire with diabolical schemes
are your initials L.L.?
If I join as a henchman, do I get a laser gun?
what you really need are sharks with freaking lasers attached to their head!
"since I'm a supervillain billionaire with diabolical schemes" Oh. And I thought you were an intelligent plant. :P
I will stop you with my super cape and above average looks!
I’m glad she mentioned that plastic is an actual stable carbon sink. The best idea would be to find large geologically stable areas for plastic carbon storage. The carbon will be locked away cheaply. Recycling is not feasible for most plastics and releases more carbon in the air. We need to remove the political stigma of plastic and go from calling it “garbage” to calling it potential “carbon storage “.
Store it after it's been used productively. We can try to replace concrete and asphalt applications with various polymers from this process
The best way to solve the energy requirement to heat ocean water to 70°C, to remove carbon from it is to build gaming cafes near the coastline. All the gaming PCs that already use lots of wattage can be hooked up to a central heat sink that uses the ocean water to cool it down and than the hot water can be pushed to a facility that removes the carbon.
copy/pasted your comment over to elon i'll let ya know if he pays up i'll give ya $50
That idea is not stupid if you change gaming cafes for nuclear reactor
fitness center by day night club by night, and harness the energy of the movement of people.....
Sabine - I found your channel today and it's outstanding!
Would it be possible to combine Desalination with carbon Capture along with Green Hydrogen production from Wind energy
I don't see how that would work. Desalination doesn't produce a stream of CO2 to capture. Green hydrogen can be produced by hydrolysis of water using electricity from any clean source. I don't see how desalination and electrolysis would work any better together than separately though.
4:24 Sabine, I love your dark humor 😂
WOW!
Always original.
Thanks for the information Sabine, very entertaining and informative video! One interesting climate change topic might be use of wood as biofuel, which the EU has categorized as sustainable. However there is much debate on whether this would actually contribute to climate change mitigation; i.e., increasing the use of wood as biofuel would mean less carbon is stored in the trees themselves or in long-lived wood products. Additionally, increasing the amount of production forests would mean there is less space for long-term carbon sinks, such as natural forests or other intact ecosystems, or farmland.
Why the metric is not "scalability" ? some solution can be cheap for a small amount of CO2 removal, but not for a large amount ( because of raising cost of mineral extraction for example)
If a lot of different solutions are invented in a competition where the cheapest method wins, plurality of methods eliminates scalability in the whole, while the lowest cost will get us going faster. Some measure of early success is necessary for the whole idea to have any chance to win support.
...is my guess on what the thinking is.
You can be sure that price/ton is ment at large scale ...
@@Smo1k good point, but I still think that scalability is key. When she says in the video, that we should plant the area of the us in trees, to curb climate change enough, i can see the problems with scalability like concurrence between crops and plantation of trees (that we have today in most country with trees).
About scalability: the trees solution is not scalable, there isn't enough free space to plant. But what if we planted them in the farmlands, they are good for growing plants, and occupy an enormous area. As a side effect, if you sobstitute farmlands with forests there will be mass famines that will kill a large part of the population, greatly helping in getting did of the emissions problem. Brilliant, isn't it? /s
Scalability is the key for me as well, the side effects can be major
I'm not sure I've learned as much as I have about this subject as I have done from this video.
We can’t neglect the impact of melting permafrost which aggravates the gas release. Thanks for all the great videos you produced really appreciate them.
What do you think that will do?
@@morpheus6749 there are massive stores of Methane gas trapped in the permafrost. Methane gas is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, some suggest up to 10 times more. Often it is regarded as the sleeping dragon, which if we wake it, we will be facing deep trouble.
Securing the permafrost ecosystems is of utmost importance alongside restoring the tropical rainforests, restoring mangroves forests, restoring seagrass beds and coral reefs, restoring prairies and restoring the bountiful wildlife that once roamed through these ecosystems, alongside reductions in greenhouse input, utilization of green energy generation and artificial carbon extraction and storage systems all together is what we need.
@@amirpatel1934 burn it lol
@@toafloast1883 some people just want just want to watch the world burn haha
@@amirpatel1934 "...utilization of green energy generation..."
Tell me what your idea of "green energy" is and your plan to replace "non-green" sources while continuing to meet the current level of world energy demand.
Miss Sabine, will you make a video about the Muon g-2 experiment?
The question has been settled already. Better theoretical computations make the g-2 measurements match the updated theory.
@@falklumo Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page:
The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO:
The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.
Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams.
OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water).
F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN.
By Frank DiMeglio
Your videos are always helpful
I love your channel. It's like PBS space-time, but for general science instead of just physics.
The fun part with those cost estimates is that they depend on the availability of cheap fossil energy.
Cheap solar, wind or hydro energy, to name just a few alternatives. In Australia solar and wind are already undermining the economic viability of fossil fuels.
@@rais1953 Hydro can't be expended for ever though. And photo voltaic cells and wind turbines are mostly made in China, whose energy mix is still overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels.
It is a much better way to use fossil fuels, at the very least it allows to reduce the consumption of fossil gas.
But until long term energy storage gets competitive, be it power to gas or something else, it is still fossil fuel, albeit indirectly.
I used to believe in the stereotype that Germans had no sense of humor. But Sabine is legit hilarious. I come here looking for a good laugh and always leave happy.
Retired supertanker of iron ore to the dead zone. I cant imagine any process coming within an order of magnitude of the cost/ton ratio.
The descriptions of some of the techniques, for example Seawater Extraction, don't say where the extracted CO2 would be stored. That's an important omission.
Honestly putting it back in the earth seems like the best solution as you would fill back the voids that were created by the extraction.
The wast majority of our coal and oil depots were formed 356mya in the Paleozoic during the eon called Carboniferous. During that time, the bacteria responsible for decomposition of Phyto material was not yet developed. That meant when a tree died, the carbon stayed inside and then was buried with time. Matter of fact if you go or live next to a coal mine, you can pick up a piece of coal and open it, you may find traces of ancient plants. The funny part is, during the carboniferous nature didnt know how to get rid of all that waste tree. Now the same trees and bio mass that created lots of trouble back in those days are doing exactly the same. Releasing carbon in which nature have a hard time to handle. In one way or another, the vestiges of the Carboniferous are....cursed.
Anyways IMO a possible solution is to make a lot of plastic and bury it. This is a very efficient way in storing carbon. Go tigers....
About water capture: We are already operating many facilities that are heating water all the time. I am talking about water that is used for cooling in power plants, super computers, web server facilities, etc. Using their inherent water heating with carbon capture technology seems like a clue for how to make this path fairly inexpensive.
My secret plan is to have desalination plants also do a carbon capture of the water. Elon, how is this plan and can I get my money?
With any carbon capture idea the big problem is what do you do with CO2 once you have captured it? It needs to be stored away somewhere, preferably for millennia. Old gas wells are a good idea, but you need to have one close by.
@@alanjenkins1508 You actually DON'T need to have one closeby. CO2 can be very easily liquified and transported to far distances to be pumped into abandoned gas wells. But a more efficient way is to first transform the CO2 in mineral form, like biochar or oil.
Best I could come up with is Soylent Green Carbon Capture.
Nah' that's old school..
Wow! That's such a nice look for you!
Carbon is good. Everything is made of carbon.
I like carbon.
All my homies love carbon
Sabine: Succinct, comprehensive and lovely presentation. Thank you so much. You are a magnificent credit to the human race. (Mr Musk owes you a prize for best video!) 🙂
Is there a contest for the most treacle laden pander here?
@@johnsmith1474 Congratulations on your vocabulary! No, I really was impressed by this presentation. But thanks for causing me to review my missive.
@@johnsmith1474 Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page:
The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO:
The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.
Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams.
OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water).
F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@itsReallyLou Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics.
Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page:
The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO:
The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.
Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams.
OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water).
F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN.
By Frank DiMeglio
honestly, this is a situation that will resolve itself carbon is just to useful and locking it away for hundreds of years seems to be a bad idea
Perhaps but what would they spend all those subsidies on instead?
"Yeah I'm not the person to win that prize." 😂
Dear Sabine, I do generally like your videos, so I'd like to ask you how you are so sure about the link climate change with CO2. I remember having seen an interview with a person involved with simulations, and I have to say that the discussion did not appear to follow the "scientific method" (you surely know what I mean). I say so, because I am not convinced of the reasons behind the climate change theories, and would really appreciate a sound explanation. In these days, your video included, the statement that CO2 shall be the magic number of a couple of centuries ago is a granted truth: please prove it.
If I have not missed it among your examples, this is my "solution": grow trees and use wood to make houses, furniture, etc.: it meets the scopes, and just note that the cost(/ton) may be zero, or even negative!
You need to understand that powerful people will use whatever they can to achieve their goals. Information is highly controlled on the Internet and television.
Ask yourself, when in the last 4 billion years was 'the climate' NOT changing.
A static climate is a false premise. But fear of some climate catastrophe has been indoctrinated into a whole generation or two of students...
And this fear will be used to justify new levels of totalitarian control over once free economies... just as a cough virus is used to justify economic shutdowns that weaken and kill small businesses, while growing Amazon and other mega-corporations who have the power to influence government for their own benefit.
It's all about power and wealth.
When you see someone avoiding an obvious truth, beware their hidden agenda. Question everybody. Money buys a lot of things.
@@MrZog-yv3be It was a surprise to me, too: You hear about the rules of the scientific method ... and then trusting the outputs of computer models with poor or no support from findings. I do generally like the "lessons" from Sabine, which is why the surprise: I asked for an explanation, but probably it would be hard for somebody to go against the stream.
You arrive at this conclusion from first principles. CO2 blocks certain wavelenghts in the IR Band. Unfortunately, these are also the wavelengths of the thermal reemissions from the earth. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more of this radiation cannot escape into space, which in turn warms the atmosphere.
@
hxhdfj ifzir st c
True, the climate has never been static. It will change in the future, human influenced or not. The problem is, this now a political/religious subject, with people exploiting it for wealth and power.
Too many people are too uneducated to distinguish between the bullshit and real science. Add in fear of the world "ending" in X years and you arrive at the climate cults you see now.
And yes, this *is* already being used to justify new levels of totalitarian control. The term eco-fascist comes to mind.
I believe that there was an error in the discussion of the remaining carbon budget to remain within the 1.5 C degree warming range. The video states that we need to reduce our annual carbon output from 40 GT to 20 GT per year. However, the amount of warming is determined by the total excess accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere not merely by the output of a single year.
The carbonbrief site presents estimates for the remaining carbon budget for the planet to hold warming to 1.5 C or less. If memory serves, the estimates range from -140 GT to about 300 GT, with the median being about 150 GT or so. To be clear, a budget of 150 GT would be met with just four years of current output. The requirement for reduction in emissions and for carbon are therefore substantially more urgent than what is implied in the video.
You know... I had a professor in grad school that was one of the wisest professors I ever knew. He taught statistical mechanics. 1 of the best lessons I ever learned from him was to make sure that you actually have a problem that needs solved before you set about solving it.
The CO2 levels were 17 times higher in the Jurassic era. We know this because of fossilized trees. We gotta long way to go before we hit that tipping point. Even if we burned up everything that we currently have access to, we wouldn't do much (half a degree according to their math). After we are finished with that, we'll quickly go back to pre-industrial populations. Everyone will have to murder about 20 people because we get our fertilizer from oil (Haber/Bosch Process). As for the Elon Musk Prize, someone needs to tell that guy we have trees and bacteria that can do that better than we can ever do it.
Informative video!
I would use an ancient technology called trees to start with.
The trees can only store the carbon in the plant it self and this is not so much. Its a frequently missunderstanding that trees produce oxygen and absorb carbondioxide. This is only true on day time. But in the night the process reverses and there is no net win.
@@halloalle2588 As a net trees absorb more and then store them as wood fiber, so to make it a real carbon sink you can grow them, chop them off, use them for some permanent structure or dump them somewhere it won't rot.
@@maggiejetson7904 There is no permanent store. Its only a delay. This is also a frequently misunderstanding. Even over Millions of years it can only work if you never use oil, gas or coal. But without that there will no solar or wind tech exist. Take in mind the fiasko in Germany...
You mean algae?
As a US citizen, I fully support replacing the country with a giant forest. #treehousesforeveryone2024
Please move to a different country.
Very interesting and informative. Thanks
The prize, and Sabine's treatment here, highlight an important issue: that a lot of what people call "climate denialism" is in fact an objection to an unhelpful attitude that plagues environmentalism: a kind of moralistic species-level self-loathing that demands not only solutions to the problem but *ideologically acceptable* solutions. This explains both the general level of anti-technology sentiment in the field and the specific (and nonsensical given the facts) absolute rejection of nuclear power as a stopgap technology.
IMO the correct attitude is this: the environment is now (that we can't passively solve it) an engineering problem. Without all that ideological nonsense, we're perfectly capable of dealing with it because human beings are, in the long run, unstoppable when it comes to engineering problems. We must be extremely careful because solutions all involve deliberate interference in extremely complex systems that we don't understand, but that's not an excuse to do nothing and it's not an excuse to reject specific solutions on ideological grounds. The stakes are way too high for that.
Sabine, amazing presentation.
amazingly wrong
a very impressive summary of the options and technologies - thank you
9:28 … I am a bit surprised that the technique of ‘weathering minerals’ in oceans is not mentioned. This weathering technique was only mentioned for use on land but actually also works in water. Of course there are still some problems of location choice, possible impact on marine life and some technical issues. The mineral Olivine is a good candidate for the job and oceans look like more efficient places than land because of the much better surface:volume proportion. The idea is to bind and incorporate the CO2 into the mineral and sink it off… maybe those ocean troughs could come in handy ? As for the geochemical aspect of change of the water it looks that the reduction of the acidification of the water is a major advantage. This olivine, actually a basalt derivative, could be used in the building of water structures like dikes and artificial river constructs and shore enforcements, artificial islands as well as securing existing islands that are under pressure of rising sea level. However all those mentioned techniques should be used as part of a global solution in conjunction with the main problem of actually reducing the production in order to reverse the global balance.
It sounds like the process of sequestering CO2 in Olivine gives off a good deal of heat. For the vast amount of CO2 we have to remove from the atmosphere, I have to imagine this would create a great deal of heat in the oceans; but maybe it's not enough to make an impact on the temperature of that volume of water? There are claims that the sequestration of CO2 in Olivine could produce enough heat to be used as an energy source; so generating power / heat while reducing CO2. Although, I imagine the logistics of gathering the Olivine and the CO2 may make this a pointless venture.
Sabine, the shapes on your background image seem so familiar, what are they exactly?
Your videos, they're clear and understandable even for a layman like me.
Greetings from the Netherlands.
I don't know, actually. The videographer picked the background. Will inquire.
@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you.
In line with the fertilization method, whales are composed of a huge amount of carbon. Doing more to increase whale populations stores that carbon in their bodies during their lives and takes it out of the atmospheric system as they die and sink to deep water, whereas trees would re-emit that carbon after they die. They also sink fairly quickly. Surface scavengers usually only reabsorb a small amount of a whale before it sinks, compared to algae, which is constantly being consumed, in large part by whales and the plankton the feed on. One whale is equivalent to about 1500 trees and stores biomass somewhere other than land area we could be using for other things that trees would take up.
Since my understanding of thermodynamics is rather rusty, maybe Sabine should do it instead, but I have been thinking for a long time now about this one problem: showing that the Laws of Thermodynamics themselves dictate that *any* method of carbon capture is going to be expensive and difficult.
Why? The short version (and for me, so far the only version) is that going the other way, burning carbon, is so cheap and effective *precisely* because this is the easy path, like going downhill. Going the other way, as carbon capture demands, is going up the hill we found it so easy to go down for so many years!
I have been thinking about this, though, specifically for the case of carbon "capture and storage". That first step, capturing the CO2 of the fossil fuel you burn, is the hard one, the step that is going back up hill, drastically reducing how much energy you can get out of your fossil fuel and so defeating the whole purpose.
Not necessarily, if you want to capture CO2 and then split Carbon from Oxygen, release Oxygen and store only Carbon then yes you will need to use equal of more energy then was produced when CO2 was produced. If however you want to just capture CO2 and store it whole then it could be probably done much easier.
Alternatively you can use some process like solar or nuclear that do not produce CO2 to power splitting of CO2, for instance Sabine here mentioned that extraction of CO2 from water requires heating it up, you can easily do it with solar concentrating power plant, aka giant mirror that focuses sunlight on some evaporation unit(not perfect example as this probably just separates CO2 and water, but you probably get the point).
You're right; you are going against thermodynamics. As Belisarian points out, it could be worse; at least we aren't trying to run the combustion reaction backwards. However, grabbing that hot CO2 out of the flue gas is going to cost you entropically, as well as financially. There's a reason you don't see much CCS. It's not particularly economical.
Genetically modify mosquitoes to photosynthesize. Are you looking for a cut of the prize?
And how will you do that? The prize goes to the person who's idea is known how it works.
first, remove their ability to suck blood or we're gonna have malaria and dengue spikes up the ass in every corner of the world. Second, we're gonna get an awful lot of small frogs and lizards and they're gonna lay waste to other insects, I hope important ones don't get impacted.
@@na43w4j29 😉
Genetically modify humans to photosythesize.
@@tabularasa0606 Yeah right?
Implant human skin with vectors containing chloroplasts 👏🤣
Excellent. Thank you, I learned a lot. As always, physicists are good at see the comparative scale of different approaches compared to the rest of us!
maybe we could try reforesting all the lands that have been intentionally deforested as a carbon capture plan - then would have 20 year harvesting cycles for lumber, which remains one of the most miraculous, versatile construction materials that exist
Must say I’m very disappointed in this presentation, What I’ve always appreciated about Sabina is her unrelenting scientific scepticism and unfiltered criticism of expensive schemes such as building a bigger collider . In this case the 50 million dollar question isn’t how to build mega carbon sequestration technology , but maybe just maybe : should we?
Nice job. You are great to watch.
The solution is exactly what you suggested in the video, Sabine; Turn North America into a carbon-sink. Problem solved.
Would fix more then just the carbon prolem 😂🤣🤣😂
Yeah and plants are growing like crazy 'cause they like it.
Yes. We will waste trillions of dollars to curb the panic of climate hysteria. Meanwhile the earth gets greener and 2 C warmer, which will be a good thing for 99% of humanity.
@@BjornMorenYeah, CO2 hysteria is a hoax.
That's not how it works. Learn some biology.
@@tabularasa0606
Many greenhouses elevate their CO2 to make plants grow faster.
@@infinitytoinfinitysquaredb7836
In controlled environments. It does not work in uncontrolled environments.
Dear Dr. Hossenfelder, Many thanks for time and great job. I am a fan of your video programs and enjoy watching them times and times. I would be grateful if you could advice me how to express this information officially in an article as it is not customary to reference to a video.
Oxford Style:
Author(s)/Uploader's Last Name, Initials. (Year, Month Day). Title of video [Video]. RUclips. URL
Idea for future video: the technologies around dealing with rising ocean levels, such as Venice's Mose sea wall and beach erosion efforts. As usual, this video was amazingly clear and succinct.
Thanks, I'll keep this in mind.
Leave it in the ground. I'll have my $50m now, thanks, Elon.
Actually it is pretty smart.
What part of "Reducing emission is not enough" you didn't get it? It is about taking it out of the atmosphere. You don't even know how to be funny.
@@Alkis05 Indeed.
I think you are brilliant with your concise lecturès.
Could you use concentrated sunlight from large lenses to get the water up to temperature when performing seawater extraction? (9:22)
In theory you could even use solar heating (that already exist for hot water shower)
@@robertoaguiar6230 Solar is expensive to manufacture though
An acre of hemp will capture the average Canadians footprint (trees suck at capture). Turn into fibre and throw it in the ground lol
Hemp is a cousin of Cannabis, right?
Let's plant enough for everybody, and eat it, instead of smoking it.
Problem solved :)
@John Smith a good idea, if you first convert to biochar!! :D love these video!!
O.K. So hemp then.
We'll just need a few uninhabited continents to grow it on.
@@bozo5632 lol yeah but I mean Antarctica is coming along so there will be more space 😁
Canada has about 2.5 billion acres for reference
Tree planting is definitely best idea so fore regardless of cost. Trees not only store carbon they also produce oxygen.
They really do it in a cycle with not much net outcome. Unless you fossilize trees into coal. Sabine correctly said, that it is basically one shot effect when you increase overall tree coverage. Not that it will continue producing
And the trees are on decline. Global terrestrial photosynthesis is expected to drop to below 50% within 20 to 30 years.
Phytoplankton decreased by 40% from 1950 to 2010, I'd say we are in deep deep doodoo.
flying insects in Germany reduced ~80%. .... lets call it doodoo-doo!
To bellow 50% of what?
@@pedrolmlkzk See "Earth to reach temperature tipping point in next 20 to 30 years, new study finds. on Science Daily dot com
Katharyn A. Duffy was interviewed on Radio Ecoshock if interested.
Trees and vegetation are dyubg in many areas. Even the Canadian boreal gorest is about to switch from carbon sink to carbon source.
In 2010 Scientific American published an article saying that 40% of phytoplankton had vanished sine 1950.
The Amazon ia mow a carbon source as many other areas.
The real problem here is that we are looking at this the completely the wrong way. Rather than recognizing the destructive nature of human technological, industrial and capitalistic society, and adjusting our system accordingly towards an ecological society. We instead think that we can keep living our lavish lifestyles and expect 8 billion people to do so in the coming years while thinking some random buildings will save us. This is not going to work, this is just a small patch and isn't attacking the root of the problem.
Awesome 👍 thanks 👍
Reading "Elon Musk" and "without the gobbledygook" in the same sentence felt profoundly wrong. Such a proficient BS machine.
Haters gonna hate. You probably hide under a rock every time a SpaceX rocket lands or Tesla doubles its production from the previous year. Good for you I suppose. 🤷🏻♂️
I think I deserve the prize. My great plan is to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere to 0.06%. (600ppm). Thus the trees, lichens and all greens will be better fed, grow faster and bigger and in areas presently covered. This will lead to far more green storage of the carbon. When thus grown it will be possible to burn wood in place of oil. And, as a bonus, the trees would love the better .006% diet!
It always cracks me up to hear people reference "cost" in these contexts. Money is 100% not real. "Cost" would be more accurately reflected as "remaining lifespan of human civilization if we do not act". Imagine finding a solution and being like "well, we can't do this because it would CoSt ToO MuCh mONEy"
Answer: Regenerative Agriculture using livestock , courtesy Allen Savory
It doesn't work. Noble idea tho.
@@anameyoucantremember can you show proof that it doesn't ? I have seen a no. of studies that show it does.....waiting !
@@mekuranda It does work to maintain healthy soil if certain conditions can be met and marginally reduce some of the CO2 emissions locally, but that's about it. The real problem is replicability. And if you cannot accomplish that worldwide, the measure is pretty much ineffective for CO2. One thing is what can be achieved theoretically, and one very different is what would be feasible. So, my point is, if you sell an idea as a panacea, you will fail miserably and do more harm in the process, since you'll be wasting resources by trying to do something "proven" in one location, that will never work in another.
As for the "proof that it doesn't", the idea has been around since the 60's. Is the CO2 problem solved? No. So, there's your proof.
If you don't believe me, here are some:
1) Monbiot, George (4 August 2014). "Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-10-28.
2) Briske, D. D. "Origin, Persistence, and Resolution of the Rotational Grazing Debate: Integrating Human Dimensions Into Rangeland Research" (PDF). Rangeland Ecol Manage 64:325-334. Retrieved 6 April 2013.
3) Briske, D.D.; Derner, J.D.; Brown, J.R.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Teague, W.R.; Havstad, K.M.; Gillen, R.L.; Ash, A.J.; Willms, W.D. (2008). "Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence". Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61: 3-17. doi:10.2111/06-159R.1. hdl:10150/642920.
@@anameyoucantremember It is practical and scalable
@@AkulaSriRahul A lot of research says otherwise
Super giant Hepa filters flown by blimps? Or anyway we can “can it” or use it as a different type of fuel?
Inspiring - thank you !
Capturing CO2 is not the solution, it's a Sisyphean task.
The more you capture, the more gets released by others,
who don't care about the environment or might even benefit from capturing it again.
Or why do you think it is, that petrol companies are investing in CO2-capture technology?
Great challenge by Musk! I'd like to nominate the no till farming movement, their approach can double or even tripple carbon storage in soil and of course vegans!
Given the current temperature rise rate is ~0.2 deg per decade and we are already well over 1 degree of warming, it looks likely that we will hit 1.5 degrees around 2040 (15 years time) whatever we do. It would be great to have a video on the impacts we can expect on that timeline and the actions that need to be prioritised. For example, which comes first - sea defences, agricultural resilience, household cooling in the tropics etc? It seems few people are looking at the practical problem of adaptation in parallel with mitigation efforts.
Don't worry. We burn coal for good reasons, like mining Bitcoins.