Every one of these videos taking a scientific look at just how "lucky" Earth is, has me convinced that life elsewhere is likely extremely rare, and that we were very lucky. As the only species on the planet that has the understanding of these things, it is our moral duty to safeguard the life that is here.
6:06 That's crazy...lol Anyone who is scuba qualified knows that water pressure doubles every 10m you descend... But it never occurred to me that when the oceans evaporate, that water, when it leaves, still has a pressure that it exerts in its new, gaseous environment. That's pretty wild... Thanks!
I'd like to know at what concentration water vapor starts to make air heavier. Humid air is less dense than dry air, according to every weather course I've ever taken.
Water pressure doesn't double for every 10m of depth. It's not an exponential growth and if it was, the water at the bottom of the ocean would be crushed into neutronium. There's an increase of about 1 atmosphere of pressure for every 10m of depth.
@Tessmage_Tessera That's not true. Oxygen molecules pack more tightly, while water molecules are polar and do not pack as tightly (unless compressed, which is presumably what makes steam machinery so powerful). Just type in "density of water vapor" in google and you'll immediately learn that it's "significantly less dense than dry air"
It's a shame that, earlier on, Venus couldn't have just called Earth and asked it 'could you show me how to do that cool plate tectonic thing?' But neighbors don't always talk to each other much.
Earth: ah, what a wonderful day to be a planet Venus: uhhh, hey earth, can I ask a favour? Mars: are you guys feeling a bit chilly too? Did someone leave a window open? Mercury: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
In some parallel universes, humans travelled to -3Bya, set up Venus with a tiny solar shade-cum-EM field generator, nuked the surface in key spots to kick-start plate tectonics, and come back every 10My to curate their extra-cool science colony.
This is also an issue with Mars, and that atmosphere is also rather inhospitable, at least in part due to the lack of a magnetosphere encouraging solar radiation to strip some of the atmosphere away. And somewhere down the comments, we're likely to see someone suggesting that earth may lose it's magnetosphere. More likely it will flip again, and be unstable for a number of decades if not centuries, then re=stabilize. We may see some dynamic solar radiation effects if that period coincides with another Carrington (or heavier) event. The other side of this is that we're still learning why earth has a magnetosphere, so, who knows.
1.22 mil subs is not underrated he's probably in the top 0.001% of creators on RUclips. The very opposite of underrated. Of course Ellen fans aren't going to watch him
It occurs to me that this suggests that the "Goldilocks Zone" is a lot narrower than it's often been thought of as being. It's widely defined in terms of being range within which liquid water can exist. But of course water is liquid at 47C and well above that - and with a lower atmospheric pressure it boils well below 100C.
The 'Goldilocks Zone' is pretty broad. It's the region where the temperatures from solar radiation alone should allow a possibility of liquid water. The 'zone' that provides viable conditions for the development of life, and its extended existence, seems much more narrow. Perhaps we should refer to this as the 'Good and Lucky' Zone. @@SanSeriffe
Retired University Astrophysics Professor: This is exactly what I taught in many of my classes. Well done Anton!!! It's important to also note two other things. One being the Milankovitch cycles that happen about every 250,000 years. These periodic Cycles are direct result of the progression of the tilt of the axis of the Earth, and are responsible for our ice ages. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the last ice age that we had, the one that formed the great lakes, happened only about 10,000 years ago. Out of 250,000, 10,000 is almost nothing. It means that we're just crawling out of the last ice age! Given how drastically our weather has been changing, and combined with the fact that the last ice age was a mere 10,000 years ago, mankind must be ever vigilant. A runaway greenhouse effect just like Venus's, is truly something that needs to be kept in mind!
Not to worry. When CO2 was 4000 ppm, the dinosaurs did just fine. CO2 is not the thermostat that the media portrays it to be. The bigger problem is if CO2 goes to low, which it almost did during the last glaciation, plant life will die and so will animal life.
This is strangely reminiscent of the temperature limits of most living beings that are not extremophiles. In our case it's also around 40°C, where SHTF more intensely the more you get above that temperature. The fact that our planet was in hyperthermia, close to the planetological equivalent to denaturation, for multiple millions of years is absolutely frightening.
bruh thats average global temp its much hotter in equator and much colder in the poles you could probably survive in the poles and above all SWEAT exists we are warm blooded youd just be sweating 24/7 o as long as you drink more then you sweat you will survive short term without any issues.
Extremely important study to calm the craziness around climate change. Runaway greenhouse house effect will never happen due to human action. Should be shown everywhere!
5:54 Did they state the change balance between the H2O and the Albedo from the extra cloud cover. White cloud cover being the Highest contributor to Albedo reflecting more solar heat, vs the same atmospheric water vapor slowing the radiations path to the outer atmosphere and space?
@@kayakMike1000 Everything stated in the video is part of how the entire greenhouse system works, it's just the part I mentioned that seams to be missed here.
@@axle.student Yeah, I felt that was incorrect. Complete cloud-cover would stop the heating by the sun, whereas higher carbon dioxide levels with clear skies would allow sunlight to come in but not infrared to radiate back to space at night. Unless either the surface of the Earth was getting hotter from the Earth's interior, or the sun was still warming the Earth despite cloud cover there'd be a balance at some point.
@@sandal_thong8631 Yeah, it's a bit of a tricky question. Cloud cover reflects the most light away from the planet followed by ICE and snow cover followed by desert/arid regions. Cloud reflects it's % including the IR (I believe) directly back out or into the most upper layers. ICE/Snow and Arid landscapes reflect a large portion of the reflected IR into lower atmospheric layers so take longer to filter up through the CO2 Water layers etc. So, for a solar heating perspective (Most of earths heating I believe) more cloud cover should reduce natural solar heating, and reduce the ability of low atmosphere heat sources from escaping (Earth core temp, stored solar heat, Man made energy etc). > Just how that balances out under the terms of earths greenhouse effect is an interesting though. Studies show that it takes quit a lot to unbalance that natural green house temperature regulating effect.
@@sandal_thong8631 If the sun is able to disasseble H02 in the outer most cloud cover, even the thickest clourd cover will sooner or later disappeare to space. I guess, this is why they assumed 1 billion years until the process is finished.
Pretty cool study. And it makes sense. I find it very funny you got a context note about Climate change, though. Considering your video is mostly about Venus :)
What occurred 400 mil yrs ago to start reducing the global temp from 40°C? Was it an ice age? Was it a change in the sun? Or?? This was a very interesting video. Thanks for diving in.
First, that 40°C temperature happened 40 million years ago not 400 million years ago. Second, there are multiple reasons why global temperature reduced like the growth of azolla algae on the north pole is of the big ones as azolla is very good and efficient at sucking up and consuming atmosphereic carbon lowering the temperature rapidly.
@@rajukoley9249it’s happen 400 million years ago, and 250 million, and 100 million years ago, finally it happened 50 million a quick Google search doesn’t hurt time to time
@@rajukoley9249 BS. Algae got nothing to do with it. At op: We had several massive cooling events in the past and they were usually associated with volcanic eruptions like the Deccan traps which released a lot of Carbon Dioxide. But since Carbon Dioxide is useless as a climate gas and the sulfur compounds that were also released otoh are very efficient at cooling, Earth cooled.
I am no planetary or atmospheric expert. However it seems to me that planetary inclination and rotation rate could have a significant impact on contributing to the susceptibility of runaway greenhouse effects as this would impact the ability of the planet to distribute and disperse the heating effects. Just my own opinion.
Venus rotation is probably from impact. The heat of impact and the friction of flying through space against the space time manifold probably have inputs. The model of runaway greenhouse presented here is probably just speculation
The more we hear these facts, the more we should all realize how special these moments in time are ,for all of us and the Earth itself ...it's the blink of the eye. There is more after this journey, so believe in a higher self so we can all hang out again one day on you tube in a galaxy far far away and read each other's comments. Comments we take for granted as the expression of the Universe.
some of us understand how unbelievably incredible our life and existence on earth truly is! Fighting against entropy is hard on the brain & body though. Gotta forgive people for having a hard time & missing out on that. To be honest, the fact that the human experience is so all-encompassing with our own inwards-facing distractions like dating, careers, identity, etc, that most fail to recognize how special it is, is kind of beautiful in its own way. We are so important to one another that we become blind to the rest of existence, & there is something about that I appreciate as well.
I appreciate everything just fine that's why I'm chronically depressed because both the problem and answers are clear but dying old humans dont give a dam
too bad this simulation is based of falsified and fabricated and contrived data. no climate models are accurate. none. look at solely rural temperatures and youll see theres very little issue. seems the city slickers like to take temps on runways, asphalt parking lots and concrete jungles. where stone retains heat. there’s very little co2 does to the atmosphere. except create life.
Of all the things I've heard on the subject, your short comment towards the end was perhaps the most chilling. "...our planet is maybe just a little bit too lucky".
The use of nuclear and geothermal power makes a snowball earth luxurious in comparison... The alternative would require humanity to move to the moon because it would be easier to live on.
As much as I hate the cold, snowball Earth is more manageable from a thermodynamic perspective. You could in theory get "free" cooling by just burying into the ground and sticking the radiators in the surface
If we survive long enough for all that to be a problem, and the odds are not in our favor, we'll probably have long-since developed the technical capability and industrial capacity to prevent it. Solar shades parked at their respective L1s regulating just how much of the sun's infrared radiation reaches Venus and Earth kneecaps the main driver of this phenomenon. We'll likely to have also developed the ability to alter atmospheric composition intentionally and on a mass scale by then too.
Nevertheless, good to know there is a much stronger feed back loop at play here. I dont think, we can survive a global average temperature of 28 degrees. 28 degrees is the current average temperature at the aquator. I dont think you can grow enough food, if the aquator temperature is on average everywhere. And what is grown maybe destroyed by stronger storms.
@@fallencobra5197 Whatever you do, with a too strong global warming, you will reduce the habitable area on the earth for animals, humans and plants. We should fight for conservation of the habitable area by reducing the consumption of fossil resources now, instead of future tech and rationing.
Even cooler is the prospect of altering earth's orbit. This is potentially possible. Not on the time scale of decades,but on the scale of millenia that's certainly possible. The basic idea would be to fling asteroids from the belt towards earth and extract energy from their orbit by letting earth perform a gravity assist on those asteroids and thus bumping our speed and orbit.
The fact that talking about greenhouse gases, namely CO2, is political is really just a testament to of how we’ve failed at science. I understand atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated but politicians have hijacked science for the worse.
I never liked the alarmist takes on climate. We're 10 years away from climatic cataclysm for more than ten years now. That sort of panic tactics only serves to make people scary or dismiss you when doomsday comes snd nothing happens
microscopic ice particles in the high atmosphere reflect light. water vapour in clouds absorbs heat, refracts or magnifies light, depending upon angles of radiation contact. when earth was a snowball some 800 million years ago, the skies were almost certainly clear as virtually all the water vapour in the air had dropped out of the sky and had been locked in the ice. most of the light and heat would be reflected. it is thought that tectonic activity, which would have been more pronounced due to the tidal forces exerted by a much more closely orbiting moon, eventually flipped that switch.
There was a study (last decade?) Regarding the amount of IR heating and overall effect of cloud cover. That study wasn't paid for by the side that thinks science is settled. It found that increasing cloud cover less than 10% could lead to the next ice age. 😮 only politicians and politically motivated people think taxes on carbon will solve climate changing, which has been going on since earth didn't have a moon.
@@dudemantype It's unknown, to be perfectly honest. As temperature increases, so does vapor pressure and water has absurd vapor pressure. This would push the atmosphere higher. What is now the stratusphere may well become part of the troposhere where other layer transitions may also exist. Any time water undergoes a phase change, heat exchange occurs. The condensation of water vapor back into water radiates more energy than the energy necessary to raise that same amount of water from just melted to boiling (heat of vaporization). Every evaporated unit of water takes with it enough energy to heat 4 equal units of water from 0 to 100 celcius. Any time water condenses, it must radiate that much energy. The heat of fusion is less intense, but the same principle of radiation applies. There's the added complexity of pressure and critical point - as local pressure decreases, the temperature at which water can remain a liquid contracts and you eventually get water condensing straight from vapor to ice. This would occur at a higher altitude under this scenario, though there is the possibility it would reflect radiated energy from cloud condensation back down into the clouds. Although, the system would ultimately reach some form of thermal equilibrium - energy radiated onto the planet equals radiation from the planet. The question is where this temperature occurs at (planck's law) and how that impacts various layers and processes. In general, I am highly skeptical of models and simulations simply because of 'the butterfly effect' and how very small differences in values can radically change results. There is just too much potential for progressive error to take these simulations too seriously. Generally speaking I suspect we undervalue the impact of core heating (we sit atop a giant fission reactor)/ tidal heating and overvalue the impact of solar heating. To what extent, though, I can't say. The other problem is that this topic has generally attracted people who hate their own existence and gain a sense of gratification from denigrating humans - who latch onto any narrative that could make us into the proverbial bad guy or make them feel morally superior. To that ends, it's become a religious faith on both ends of the spectrum and is very difficult to approach from an objective stance, myself included.
With that surface temperatures even tectonic plates could stop for some time leaving the earth just like Venus, the mayor driver of tectonic plates is heat transfer (from inside to outside), if you stop that process by heating the planet surface more than the interior (1500K is hotter than the cust for several miles), then this force stops, the rock might get hotter and more fluid or plastic, but it can also fuse together binding the contact points of the plates...
How much sunlight is reflected is just one factor. It is also very important how much heat can leave Earth into space. The cloud cover will reflect more sunlight but at the same time trap more of the heat that goes through anyway. The problem arise when the balance is shifted in a way that more heat is trapped that can leave the system. Then it is not important that less light can reach the ground, as even a small amount will heat up the system over time.
@@patrickm3981 Interesting. I thought total cloud cover would result in a new stable point of heat in = heat out. But perhaps you're saying the atmosphere at the cloud layer could keep heating and thus continue warming the planet without the direct sunlight?
@@sandal_thong8631If the sun disappeared, all the heat would be radiated and then the atmosphere would would freeze out and we would be back to an ice-covered planet. The greenhouse iceball effect (tm) 😊
Excellent video as always. It is so nice to listen to real science without a political spin. I watch your videos daily Anton. You are a gift that keeps on giving.
Not only is it political, its a religious doomsday raindancing cult. An effort seen throughout history to give man control over his surroundings for the sake of fair weather and good harvest via sacrifice. Its not science.
A lot of people are not going to remember when the end of the earth doesn't happen within 6 or 7 years like a "friend of mine" warned me about 20 years ago. Somehow, he didn't remember, after about 10 years later. Another friend warned me that the Earth would be too hot about 10 years after Al Gore's movie. Before that, in about 1968 the Earth was going to get too cold for life.
to all the youtubers who haven't finished the video: No, increase pressure would not condense water because vapor pressure is a partial pressure that does not depend on the total pressure. "ummmm... but what if you just add a whole bunch of argon to increase pressure which would condense water, duhhhh"
Models are subject to GiGo. For instance, greenhouse forcing of clouds is not as one-sided as this paper seems to assume. Yes, denser clouds would retain more heat. However, denser water vapor clouds also have a cooling effect as well. In the tropics today clouds illustrate this cooling effect in 2 ways: 1. The high albedo of the tops of the clouds reflects a substantial portion of the solar radiation. More clouds = more reflection. 2. As the water vapor ascends the heat is dispersed upward through condensation (the heat eventually leaving the atmosphere as IR radiation) and the water falls to earth, absorbing atmospheric heat on the way down to once again evaporate, rise, condense radiating the heat further up, and falling to earth cooling the atmosphere -- wash, rinse, repeat.
How about venus have 243 earth day long rotational length. Is it possible that also helped to turn the heater to the max, and its also closer to the Sun.
@matthewsmith8249 I assume In terms of green house effect or insulators properties, it is an excellent universal buffer, temp, pH etc. Not in terms of toxicity or harm oh20
@matthewsmith8249 I assume In terms of green house effect or insulators properties, it is an excellent universal buffer, temp, pH etc. Not in terms of toxicity or danger h2o poses chemically
If we're still around by then, I assume we're so technologically advanced that we either can move to somewhere else in space or that we can control the atmosphere to such an extent that we can keep the planet hospitable.
Possible. But it's so hard to imagine our civilization enduring for the next 100 years without collapsing, that a million or a billion is almost inconceivable. Even _Dune_ which is set twenty thousand years in the future, will probably not be anything like our future, if we survive.
@@sapphonymph8204 Nuclear war, drought, famine, plague. We came back from Dark Ages during the Bronze Age and after Rome fell, but who knows if we would again? I doubt if international trade shuts down there'd be Mad Max-style automobile battles, though.
@@chad0x I can speak on science all day but unless you cite sources and can spend hours editing the presentation even the best science insights would come across as a ramble. I speak of issues that as not so big when I do and comment where I need to on other channels.
I've seen the videos about the snowball Earth, which had low carbon dioxide levels as the prime mover. But it wasn't permanent, because of the underlying ocean and plate tectonics which allows for volcanos to put gases back in the atmosphere.
For the earth to become like Venus it's rotation would have to slow down to match that of Venus's rotation, giving it too much time to heat up before the night cycle give it a chance to shead some heat. Unless we pay you the entire planet.
@@beedoox5613Yes. We may be able to stop producing greenhouse gasses (i.e. gasses with more than 2 atoms) but the Sun's luminosity will continue to increase. There are ways to mitigate the effects of its increased luminosity.
@@wolvenar why should everyone else suffer because you know so little about science that you can't differentiate people with scientific credentials commissioned by fossile fuel execs. And scientists?
In our local astronomy and meteorology paper there once was an article on Venus and it's predicted hydrogen to deuterium ratio. Based on the energy of the solar wind attempting to knock off particles on the top layer of the atmosphere and they got roughly the right numbers too. Was awesome, but also quite a long time ago, so the particulars escape me, like hydrogen in Venus' top layer of the atmosphere.
In another video you discussed a theory that the earth might get kicked to a farther orbit as the sun loses mass as it’s volume grows. It would be interesting to run that sim with the earth further out. Could counter a lot of the heat.
The sun gets a lot hotter & boils away the oceans first, then the suns atmosphere partially envelops the earth, but earths orbit eventually grows in radius faster than the sun so it may survive & leave the suns atmosphere. But ahh, the temperature will still be way way, way way way way hotter than it is now, even after its no longer being cooked in the solar oven.
While the sun loses mass and pushes at Earth via its magnetic fields AND the solar wind, the orbit decays due to gravitational waves and frame dragging. The math is so difficult that Newton failed at it. I am not willing to make any predictions how this will work out.
I don't buy the claim that plate tectonics somehow limits CO2 in the atmosphere. If anything, tectonics would increase vulcanization, which puts more CO2 into the atmosphere (melting & releasing carbon & oxygen in rock formations). Rather, life--specifically photosynthesis--extracts CO2, and geologic forces trap it (until tectonics causes volcanoes which releases it). The ocean is full of organisms which absorb carbon, die, and become part of sedimentary rock. Also, all the fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) are examples of life capturing carbon and trapping it in the geological structures). CO2 used to be MUCH higher than it is now, and that drop would seem to be driven mostly by life. Life was so successful at converting CO2 into hydrocarbons that it decreased atmospheric CO2 to such low levels that it wasn't much higher than the minimum capable of sustaining photosynthesis. (Obviously, it will be different for each plant, but that limit has been reported to be in the ~150 ppm and the atmosphere was approaching the low 200s pre-industrial revolution. In fact, we could call plants reckless for consuming virtually the entirety of a seemingly unlimited resource of atmospheric CO2, even to the point of nearly killing themselves.)
Plants did nearly kill the planet at the end of the carboniferous period. Indeed, it is their fossilised carbon that we are releasing back into the atatmosphere. Humans are here to return equilibrium to the planet, not ruin it. Only sub-human politicians ruin things. BTW plate tectonics ensure carbon is constantly being released with volcanism and reabsorbed with crust sublimation and weathering (sediment) - a cycle that maintains equilibrium.
The Earth is unusually cool right now. Since the Cambrian period, Earth has usually been either hot and sticky, or hot and dry. So, get out there and enjoy the nice weather.
Venus's problem is its very very long day which is longer than its year and having no magnetosphere, which allows the Solar wind to strip the lighter elements of the atmosphere.
The sun is gradually getting hotter too so anything we do to prevent it ultimately will fail, but still that's a long way away in the future, long after we've already moved into space.
@@ConontheBinarian Would asteroids be massive enough? A better solution might be to stimulate more currents inside the Sun. Red dwarfs last more or less for ever, because their core currents stop helium ash building up at the star's centre. If there *is* an ash core in a star (as there is in the Sun), the fusion reaction keeps moving outwards and intensifying, making the star hotter, and aging it more quickly.
I have one stupid question.... more clouds mean more sun energy is reflected directly to space (it is called albedo?) so what about it ? Also I don't know that in all wavelengths but clouds make a kind of shadow protecting surface from heating. Also does more pressure change only boiling temperature or whole charactersitic of evaporation at any temperature ?
I reread the relevant parts of the Study. I was wrong they did model this. Yes they would reflect more light away, however they would also trap most of the infarared and longerwave radiation coming from the surface of the planet within themselves and wouldn't reflect enough incoming radiation away versus the radiation trying to escape from the earths surface.
@@Pyxis10 Interesting. I'd wondered if total cloud cover would be the new stable point. But you (and others) are saying the sun would still keep heating the Earth despite the clouds and it couldn't radiate heat to space.
Yep, they left that out. But I think they were also suggesting that sunlight would knock off more hydrogen into space leaving the oxygen to bond with other elements creating more carbon dioxide? Still doesn't sound right.
Venus is reflective. Very very very reflective, with an insane albedo. Also, it is a blazing inferno. I am very sure you have not taken this into account.
@@u.v.s.5583 Presumably Venus isn't getting any hotter, but has reached a stable point. People in other threads are saying a future Earth with total cloud cover would not be a stable point. They say clouds would not keep the Earth getting even hotter but GHGs and clouds would block infrared being released into space.
@@sandal_thong8631 Why should the surface of Venus not reach a steady temperature? The outgoing radiation is a nonlinear function of temperature (think T^4). So even though the temperature is stable, you still have what to us earthlings should be called a runaway greenhouse effect.
11 месяцев назад+1
the good news is that those computer model predictions are never right.
Pressure does affect temperature massively. How do you think a star shines? There are several studies that suggest the pressure of the atmosphere of Venus alone, can hold it's temperature.
All the models that talk about "runaway greenhouse effect" that mention Venus disregard a huge factor: Venus is 28% closer to the sun as the Earth and gets about twice the radiation from the Sun because of that.
And the atmospheric pressure is about 93 bar, or 1300 PSI. That's higher than the pressure that caused the Ocean Gate sub to implode. That has a lot to do with it, too.
Thanks Anton. This was a very interesting study. > On a different note (Climate change and Political solutions). This is why I get a little upset about the whole climate alarmism that is occurring. Yes the planets climate WILL change, be it from geological evolution, mans contribution or the mixture of both. Although the time scales to gamble on seam long the reality is we live on a constantly changing planet and ultimately it is a dyeing planet. Shorter term and long term requires a lot of energy, and I mean a lot. We quite frankly have no plan in place to achieve that without also emitting that energy into the biosphere. We have to become space faring (Even though that also presents its own set of survival issues), and get any industrialization (heat) associated with it off the planet. We will need to do this at some point, or we just go the way of the dinosaurs. > As you say in this video, and this is nothing new, Earths greenhouse effect and the natural balancing of warm temperatures involves far far more than just CO2 and CH4, yet ALL of the solutions focus on CO2/CH4 alone. I don't understand why the climate change lobby focuses on such a narrow distorted piece of the big picture rather than looking at the bigger picture :( > Sorry for introducing the political aspect even though you didn't want to go there, but it's the science aspect behind it that never makes sense to me so it's difficult to avoid that association when science and politics become indistinguishable.
We are supposed to be entering a cooling period. This is not political simply because some politicians are desperate for votes. The real question is why are you bent on being non-scientific and helping to increase our danger? Do you just not care about the hell we are leaving for out children? Science is based on evidence, right-wing politics is based on keeping power despite their refusal to accept that society and science continue to evolve. We were supposed to be past racism, and yet it's clear who the confederate party still is, even after spending 20 years to flip the parties to hide their racist roots. Read _The Southern Strategy_ by Richard Nixon if you refuse to believe it. But seriously, what else would caused red state democrats to all jump ship after civil rights was passed, then by the end of the 60's they all suddenly became republicans, but still fly the confederate flag. Take a good look at who has you convinced that it's the 2% of climatologists that are correct, and that 98% of climatologists are wrong. It's just simple math. 98 > 2. And apparently 2% is all they needed to fool a certain sect of American society. Just 2% out of 100%// I don't believe it's because they can't do math, I think it's because they are afraid "the others." And yet they claim to be strong and courageous, but always kick down at those with the least power, and never punch up at our mutual oppressors; the wealthy elite. Nopes, instead they vote the wealthy elite into office, and ignore the fact they promised to raises taxes on the wealthy elite (themselves and their buddies, lols), then turned around and fave you and I a tiny tax break that was set to expire in 2021, but the massive break they gave themselves was of course, permanent. Remember how we warned ya'll about bush? He said he wanted a war in the middle east even before he ran for president. Ya'll let him do two of them. Where are the WMD's. More importantly, where are those thousands of U.S. soldiers? Not to mention the opposition who turned out to be innocent, and the thousands of dead civilians. Or how about the government shutdowns, including the one looming over us currently. And that one because a certain party seems bent in supporting our historically greatest enemy in his quest to invade Europe and defeat the Anglo-Saxons he is clearly racist against. Witch is made extra ridiculous by the fact this is the same group of people who get all upset about racism against white people.. well, there it is. Putin hates Anglo-Saxons. Read the "victory" message Russian state media had set to automatically release after they invaded and took control of Ukraine, they quickly took it down, but not before a copy of the document was made. I suggest reading it. At the very least it makes putins plans to continue his war of imperialism into Europe and the U.S.
We pump more groundwater than we burn oil, so if water vapor is a worse green house gas, how can CO2 be the culprit in the changing climate? Maybe the sun should get more attention in this question...
Now all we need to do is figure out how to reverse this model, cleaning up the damage we've done to our own atmosphere, then making the same system work overtime on Venus to make it habitable...
I don't know if you realize this or not but global warming is happening yes. But we can't stop it. Do we contribute to it warming faster? Yes, but even if we could remove our foot print so to speak, it still won't stop. We are still in the ice age. Until all the ice is gone we are still in the ice age. How can I prove this? They have found palm trees fossils in the Artic and Antarctic. Palm trees just so happen to grow in tropical regions. The earth works in cycles. Pick up any book that talks about dinosaurs and it will say when dinosaurs roamed the earth it was much hotter. If you've ever noticed lizards and crocodiles don't live in the cold. These are the closed relatives to the dinosaurs. Our earth will get warmer know that for sure. Yes we were thrown into the ice age because of a meteor. But we haven't gotten out of it yet. Please look up everything that I'm talking about. My sanity isn't in question, it's societies sanity that should be questioned. But people are trusting and they are going along with the political agenda that the media is shoving down our throats. Why, because if they can push society to move down a predicted path, they can profit from this move greatly and pay off those that helped society to go in that direction. It's called capitalism!
There is a braking effect from the extremely massive atmosphere. 1. A day is a day. 2. Runaway greenhouse effect. 3. A day is longer than a year. 4. Stupid humans say that runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the long day.
@@wolvenar Disrupting planetary orbits is... ill-advised to say the least. And you wouldn't need to do all that, just park solar shades in front of Venus and Earth at their respective L1s to regulate solar radiation reaching them, and Mars can get solar mirrors to collect more solar radiation to redirect towards the planet it otherwise doesn't get.
Maybe a hundred to get the technical ability to create those structures and a thousand to understand the chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans well enough to make it work.
With the sheer amount of oxygen in the oceans, not likely. Thank you for differentiating fossil fuel causing greenhouse gases from the majority of other sources.
Hi Anton. Great content. At 2:45 you talk about b burning fossil fuels. What is your source? I couldn't find it in the description. Perhaps i missed it. I tried to check the study but it was a lot.
You stated an assumption as fact. You said water vapor increases the greenhouse effect of other gases. That has no basis in fact. Also water in the form of ice or clouds greatly increases the albedo of Earth thereby reflecting the Sun’s energy before it can cause any warming.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 Venus gets 91% more solar irradiance than earth. It would be much hotter if the clouds didn’t reflect 75% of the sun’s energy. Oh yea, days last 116 earth days there too.
True. But changing our climate's stable point from the 18th century to the time of the dinosaurs does not seem to be a desirable goal. Certainly losing a lot of productive and valuable coastline would be economically devastating, not to mention the extreme weather we've been having and disruption to the jet stream(s).
Interesting. Was there perchance a global civilization at that time reliant on stable agricultural yields and significant sources of fresh water to function? No? Then maybe that's an irrelevant comparison
@@AC-kf6mo If you mean the time of the dinosaurs, then that's nonsensical. I'd say a Mediterranean Dark Age due to climate change around 1000 BC would be a good comparison. In that case, civilization came back. But if civilization today collapses, there might not be a way to come back.
Not more than the irony that the same atoms that make up living beings, when becoming slightly heavier, form the critical mass of a nuclear weapon. It is equivalent of the fact that all this wonderous and beautiful world is made up of a few elementary particles and 4 fundamental forces (probably)
Hey Anton, love your content and your videos but PLEASE avoid the urge, no matter how small and incremental to creep the titiles towards click-bait. You DO NOT need to do this to maintain or grow your followers and its one of the things we love about your channel.
@@Jimunu the value of the renewables industry is not far behind global oil industry, yet it provides only a fraction of the energy in the global market. switching fully is going to empty your pockets like nothing in history. you are conjuring the biggest transfer of wealth up the chain ever.
Um...No. The planet WAS at the higher end for temperatures, 400 million years ago. Currently the Earth is in an interglacial period of an ice age, and has been on a downward temperature trend overall, for hundreds of millions of years.
That's not true at all. The Earth had much higher and lower average temperatures and noticeably higher atmospheric pressure than today for most of its history. We're sitting in some pretty comfortable and moderate temperatures right now.
@@benjamintherogue2421 TBH the planet could do with a few degrees higher average temperature, human coastal cities would need to be moved, but massive areas would be opened up for agriculture in the sub-polar regions of N.A. Europe, and Asia.
well water vaopr from teh soalr wind is giong to kill us all even if we stop useing fossle fuels anyway. thats what they are notr eling you aobut the greenhosue climaite change issue is not giong to stop by spoting useing fossle fuels won't stop the water vaopr from the sun makeing earth hotter and hotter if we don't use most of the erta wator vaopr coeming from the soalr wind for space travel to keep earth from natruly having a nutral green hosue runway efect from the extra wator vapor anyway.
It has the opposite effect, temperature data shows that. At certain temperatures there is so much evaporation and cloudcover happening that it will literally trigger an iceage.
We can stop calling them “fossil fuels” as we know that heat/pressure creates complex hydrocarbons all over the universe. Also thanks for acknowledging the role of water vapor. Let’s also talk about the “greenhouse effect” would see elevations in temps at all levels of the atmosphere and not just at ground level.
the concept behind a sugar tax is that excess sugar in foods causes a notable and severe decline in the health of the populace at large which creates an increased cost on society primarily in the form of healthcare (but also reduced productivity among other things). You tax sugar to pay for the increased cost of healthcare. The point isn't to magically make food healthier, the point is to address the hidden cost in products with added sugar.
We are living in a glorious interval and need to be thankful for that. We can be sad that we will not be here always or we can be glad that we are here now.
We’ll all be gone by then so don’t worry about it. Besides, Earth will eventually fry whatever we do. More pressing is whether you’d support totalitarianism to save Earth.
Anton neglected to mention that the temperature forcing mechanism follows a log curve. Measured to be ~1C for each doubling of concentration. So another @C would require is to get close to 2200ppm. a
One thing I'm really curious about is: once this process has completed, can it ever be reversed? For instance, if the planet was knocked into an orbit that was much further from the star, so it became much colder.
Runaway greenhouse effect IS possible but we do not have climate models good enough t make ANY predictions (beyond average temperature which you can predict with two equations in an Excel sheet). And, yes, aspect that needs to better described are the effects of water clouds and vapor and really other sub-grid effects. We need a full carbon cycle mode. None exist right now. We have an -inadequate - atmospheric model and some heuristic and simple models for land effects. And we are nowhere near developing a full carbon cycle model because (i) it is order of magnitude more difficult than the atmospheric model, (ii) we have nowhere near the amount of data needed, and (iii) people are focused on atmospheric models and making dire predictions.
@@Jimunu When do you think the sun radiation got stronger? You think the sun was weaker 17 million years ago? 60 million years ago? A billion years ago? Do you even know when the last major co2/greenhouse gas event(s) occurred?
@@tvviewer4500 potholer54 has good explanatory videos on that probably. And it got gradually stronger. Good to know you avoided to respond on the human destruction of ecological resilience.
Every one of these videos taking a scientific look at just how "lucky" Earth is, has me convinced that life elsewhere is likely extremely rare, and that we were very lucky. As the only species on the planet that has the understanding of these things, it is our moral duty to safeguard the life that is here.
It's really hard for us to get rid of all life, we can hardly kill an infection
Agreed. Fermi paradox solved.
6:06 That's crazy...lol
Anyone who is scuba qualified knows that water pressure doubles every 10m you descend...
But it never occurred to me that when the oceans evaporate, that water, when it leaves, still has a pressure that it exerts in its new, gaseous environment.
That's pretty wild...
Thanks!
We learn something new every day
I'd like to know at what concentration water vapor starts to make air heavier. Humid air is less dense than dry air, according to every weather course I've ever taken.
there's many reasons why it's harder to breathe in extremely humid environments.
Water pressure doesn't double for every 10m of depth. It's not an exponential growth and if it was, the water at the bottom of the ocean would be crushed into neutronium. There's an increase of about 1 atmosphere of pressure for every 10m of depth.
@Tessmage_Tessera That's not true. Oxygen molecules pack more tightly, while water molecules are polar and do not pack as tightly (unless compressed, which is presumably what makes steam machinery so powerful). Just type in "density of water vapor" in google and you'll immediately learn that it's "significantly less dense than dry air"
It's a shame that, earlier on, Venus couldn't have just called Earth and asked it 'could you show me how to do that cool plate tectonic thing?' But neighbors don't always talk to each other much.
hey ill worry about my plates and you worry about yours...why are u sweating??
Earth: ah, what a wonderful day to be a planet
Venus: uhhh, hey earth, can I ask a favour?
Mars: are you guys feeling a bit chilly too? Did someone leave a window open?
Mercury: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Or they could have paid taxes through their nose to stop climate change.
In some parallel universes, humans travelled to -3Bya, set up Venus with a tiny solar shade-cum-EM field generator, nuked the surface in key spots to kick-start plate tectonics, and come back every 10My to curate their extra-cool science colony.
😂😂 very good 😊
Venus has the considerable difference of not having an induced magnetic field and being closer to the sun, stripping lighter atmospheric elements
This is also an issue with Mars, and that atmosphere is also rather inhospitable, at least in part due to the lack of a magnetosphere encouraging solar radiation to strip some of the atmosphere away.
And somewhere down the comments, we're likely to see someone suggesting that earth may lose it's magnetosphere. More likely it will flip again, and be unstable for a number of decades if not centuries, then re=stabilize. We may see some dynamic solar radiation effects if that period coincides with another Carrington (or heavier) event.
The other side of this is that we're still learning why earth has a magnetosphere, so, who knows.
...and atmospheric pressure that close to 1400 PSI
And Venus has a very long rotational period, with one of its days being longer than its year.
@@matthewsmith8249it probably did not have that before the run away greenhouse effect
One billion years from now is a long time.
Thank you Anton, very interesting, as usual.
I will never get tired of your smile at the end of your videos, Anton.
Thank you for all the work you do!
one of the most underrated RUclips producers.
1.22 mil subs is not underrated he's probably in the top 0.001% of creators on RUclips. The very opposite of underrated. Of course Ellen fans aren't going to watch him
It occurs to me that this suggests that the "Goldilocks Zone" is a lot narrower than it's often been thought of as being. It's widely defined in terms of being range within which liquid water can exist. But of course water is liquid at 47C and well above that - and with a lower atmospheric pressure it boils well below 100C.
@@SanSeriffethat's assuming a similarly sized planet though
The 'Goldilocks Zone' is pretty broad. It's the region where the temperatures from solar radiation alone should allow a possibility of liquid water. The 'zone' that provides viable conditions for the development of life, and its extended existence, seems much more narrow. Perhaps we should refer to this as the 'Good and Lucky' Zone. @@SanSeriffe
Retired University Astrophysics Professor: This is exactly what I taught in many of my classes.
Well done Anton!!!
It's important to also note two other things.
One being the Milankovitch cycles that happen about every 250,000 years. These periodic Cycles are direct result of the progression of the tilt of the axis of the Earth, and are responsible for our ice ages.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly, the last ice age that we had, the one that formed the great lakes, happened only about 10,000 years ago.
Out of 250,000, 10,000 is almost nothing. It means that we're just crawling out of the last ice age!
Given how drastically our weather has been changing, and combined with the fact that the last ice age was a mere 10,000 years ago, mankind must be ever vigilant.
A runaway greenhouse effect just like Venus's, is truly something that needs to be kept in mind!
Not to worry. When CO2 was 4000 ppm, the dinosaurs did just fine. CO2 is not the thermostat that the media portrays it to be. The bigger problem is if CO2 goes to low, which it almost did during the last glaciation, plant life will die and so will animal life.
This is strangely reminiscent of the temperature limits of most living beings that are not extremophiles. In our case it's also around 40°C, where SHTF more intensely the more you get above that temperature. The fact that our planet was in hyperthermia, close to the planetological equivalent to denaturation, for multiple millions of years is absolutely frightening.
Our species seems to have nostalgia for such an Era.
bruh thats average global temp its much hotter in equator and much colder in the poles you could probably survive in the poles and above all SWEAT exists we are warm blooded youd just be sweating 24/7 o as long as you drink more then you sweat you will survive short term without any issues.
@@mertc8050 Back then the temperature was much more uniform than now IIRC
@@mertc8050heat + humidity = wet bulb
Life is a fragile thing
you would just live in the shade or in the water or whatever
Extremely important study to calm the craziness around climate change. Runaway greenhouse house effect will never happen due to human action. Should be shown everywhere!
5:54 Did they state the change balance between the H2O and the Albedo from the extra cloud cover. White cloud cover being the Highest contributor to Albedo reflecting more solar heat, vs the same atmospheric water vapor slowing the radiations path to the outer atmosphere and space?
Probably not. It's fantasy.
@@kayakMike1000 Everything stated in the video is part of how the entire greenhouse system works, it's just the part I mentioned that seams to be missed here.
@@axle.student Yeah, I felt that was incorrect. Complete cloud-cover would stop the heating by the sun, whereas higher carbon dioxide levels with clear skies would allow sunlight to come in but not infrared to radiate back to space at night. Unless either the surface of the Earth was getting hotter from the Earth's interior, or the sun was still warming the Earth despite cloud cover there'd be a balance at some point.
@@sandal_thong8631 Yeah, it's a bit of a tricky question. Cloud cover reflects the most light away from the planet followed by ICE and snow cover followed by desert/arid regions. Cloud reflects it's % including the IR (I believe) directly back out or into the most upper layers. ICE/Snow and Arid landscapes reflect a large portion of the reflected IR into lower atmospheric layers so take longer to filter up through the CO2 Water layers etc.
So, for a solar heating perspective (Most of earths heating I believe) more cloud cover should reduce natural solar heating, and reduce the ability of low atmosphere heat sources from escaping (Earth core temp, stored solar heat, Man made energy etc).
>
Just how that balances out under the terms of earths greenhouse effect is an interesting though. Studies show that it takes quit a lot to unbalance that natural green house temperature regulating effect.
@@sandal_thong8631 If the sun is able to disasseble H02 in the outer most cloud cover, even the thickest clourd cover will sooner or later disappeare to space. I guess, this is why they assumed 1 billion years until the process is finished.
Pretty cool study. And it makes sense. I find it very funny you got a context note about Climate change, though. Considering your video is mostly about Venus :)
Thanks for an amazing video/topic, Anton. That was one of the most interesting videos I've seen.
What occurred 400 mil yrs ago to start reducing the global temp from 40°C? Was it an ice age? Was it a change in the sun? Or?? This was a very interesting video. Thanks for diving in.
First, that 40°C temperature happened 40 million years ago not 400 million years ago.
Second, there are multiple reasons why global temperature reduced like the growth of azolla algae on the north pole is of the big ones as azolla is very good and efficient at sucking up and consuming atmosphereic carbon lowering the temperature rapidly.
Probably the breaking up of the continents combined with the asteroid that struck Earth 65 m.y.a.
@@rajukoley9249it’s happen 400 million years ago, and 250 million, and 100 million years ago, finally it happened 50 million a quick Google search doesn’t hurt time to time
@@rajukoley9249 BS. Algae got nothing to do with it.
At op: We had several massive cooling events in the past and they were usually associated with volcanic eruptions like the Deccan traps which released a lot of Carbon Dioxide. But since Carbon Dioxide is useless as a climate gas and the sulfur compounds that were also released otoh are very efficient at cooling, Earth cooled.
@@rajukoley9249 I don't think so, since the dinosaurs were 65 million years ago and our ancestors the mammals were around then and survived.
I am no planetary or atmospheric expert. However it seems to me that planetary inclination and rotation rate could have a significant impact on contributing to the susceptibility of runaway greenhouse effects as this would impact the ability of the planet to distribute and disperse the heating effects. Just my own opinion.
They say the atmosphere of Venus is what caused its rotation to slow to once per every 117 Earth days.
Venus rotation is probably from impact. The heat of impact and the friction of flying through space against the space time manifold probably have inputs. The model of runaway greenhouse presented here is probably just speculation
The more we hear these facts, the more we should all realize how special these moments in time are ,for all of us and the Earth itself ...it's the blink of the eye. There is more after this journey, so believe in a higher self so we can all hang out again one day on you tube in a galaxy far far away and read each other's comments.
Comments we take for granted as the expression of the Universe.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😊👍
Unsettling just how much we don't appreciate what we have now.
some of us understand how unbelievably incredible our life and existence on earth truly is! Fighting against entropy is hard on the brain & body though. Gotta forgive people for having a hard time & missing out on that.
To be honest, the fact that the human experience is so all-encompassing with our own inwards-facing distractions like dating, careers, identity, etc, that most fail to recognize how special it is, is kind of beautiful in its own way. We are so important to one another that we become blind to the rest of existence, & there is something about that I appreciate as well.
Perhaps it's just the people you hang out with.
@@Breeze_Eyou must be one of the wise and virtuous elite.
I appreciate everything just fine that's why I'm chronically depressed because both the problem and answers are clear but dying old humans dont give a dam
too bad this simulation is based of falsified and fabricated and contrived data. no climate models are accurate. none.
look at solely rural temperatures and youll see theres very little issue. seems the city slickers like to take temps on runways, asphalt parking lots and concrete jungles. where stone retains heat. there’s very little co2 does to the atmosphere. except create life.
Of all the things I've heard on the subject, your short comment towards the end was perhaps the most chilling. "...our planet is maybe just a little bit too lucky".
Or planned
And that is why Drake Equation is not working. There are lots of missing elements in the equation and for now we just call them luck.
survivorship bias, there's countless other livable planets out there who also probably got "lucky" and obviously not all do.
@@vuchaser99no doubt.
@tremaine5845 It's funny how they say extraterrestrial life is a fact but our extraordinary scientific methods can't detect any at all.
Nice. Just plain facts and no political bias. Thanks
I'd prefer snowball earth, atleast then you could make small habitable areas, not as easy to negate a blazing inferno.
The use of nuclear and geothermal power makes a snowball earth luxurious in comparison... The alternative would require humanity to move to the moon because it would be easier to live on.
likely neither will happen and if they do it will be because of the sun and not “human activities”
As much as I hate the cold, snowball Earth is more manageable from a thermodynamic perspective. You could in theory get "free" cooling by just burying into the ground and sticking the radiators in the surface
@@sparking023 Are you OK with wiping out almost all of the live on Earth?
@@_Diana_S no? Where did you get that from? Lol
It's simply a question of which doomsday scenario is more manageable
If we survive long enough for all that to be a problem, and the odds are not in our favor, we'll probably have long-since developed the technical capability and industrial capacity to prevent it. Solar shades parked at their respective L1s regulating just how much of the sun's infrared radiation reaches Venus and Earth kneecaps the main driver of this phenomenon. We'll likely to have also developed the ability to alter atmospheric composition intentionally and on a mass scale by then too.
Nevertheless, good to know there is a much stronger feed back loop at play here. I dont think, we can survive a global average temperature of 28 degrees. 28 degrees is the current average temperature at the aquator. I dont think you can grow enough food, if the aquator temperature is on average everywhere. And what is grown maybe destroyed by stronger storms.
@@renezirkeladvancements in vertical farming are incredible im sure we will be able to feed the whole world even if we have to ration a bit
@@fallencobra5197 Whatever you do, with a too strong global warming, you will reduce the habitable area on the earth for animals, humans and plants. We should fight for conservation of the habitable area by reducing the consumption of fossil resources now, instead of future tech and rationing.
Even cooler is the prospect of altering earth's orbit. This is potentially possible. Not on the time scale of decades,but on the scale of millenia that's certainly possible.
The basic idea would be to fling asteroids from the belt towards earth and extract energy from their orbit by letting earth perform a gravity assist on those asteroids and thus bumping our speed and orbit.
@@AkantorJojo there’s a way easier way if we just use the moon to pull the earth
Excellent video. Great explanation
The fact that talking about greenhouse gases, namely CO2, is political is really just a testament to of how we’ve failed at science. I understand atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated but politicians have hijacked science for the worse.
Actually politicians have hijacked the scientists.
I never liked the alarmist takes on climate. We're 10 years away from climatic cataclysm for more than ten years now. That sort of panic tactics only serves to make people scary or dismiss you when doomsday comes snd nothing happens
@@sparking023 agreed!
GREAT video, thank you so much!!!
What about the albedo effect?
(Where clouds reflect the sunlight)
microscopic ice particles in the high atmosphere reflect light. water vapour in clouds absorbs heat, refracts or magnifies light, depending upon angles of radiation contact.
when earth was a snowball some 800 million years ago, the skies were almost certainly clear as virtually all the water vapour in the air had dropped out of the sky and had been locked in the ice. most of the light and heat would be reflected. it is thought that tectonic activity, which would have been more pronounced due to the tidal forces exerted by a much more closely orbiting moon, eventually flipped that switch.
@@thehellyousay ahh ok. So in the scenario in this video, those ice particles wouldn't form anymore?
There was a study (last decade?) Regarding the amount of IR heating and overall effect of cloud cover. That study wasn't paid for by the side that thinks science is settled. It found that increasing cloud cover less than 10% could lead to the next ice age. 😮 only politicians and politically motivated people think taxes on carbon will solve climate changing, which has been going on since earth didn't have a moon.
@@dudemantype
It's unknown, to be perfectly honest.
As temperature increases, so does vapor pressure and water has absurd vapor pressure. This would push the atmosphere higher. What is now the stratusphere may well become part of the troposhere where other layer transitions may also exist.
Any time water undergoes a phase change, heat exchange occurs. The condensation of water vapor back into water radiates more energy than the energy necessary to raise that same amount of water from just melted to boiling (heat of vaporization). Every evaporated unit of water takes with it enough energy to heat 4 equal units of water from 0 to 100 celcius. Any time water condenses, it must radiate that much energy. The heat of fusion is less intense, but the same principle of radiation applies. There's the added complexity of pressure and critical point - as local pressure decreases, the temperature at which water can remain a liquid contracts and you eventually get water condensing straight from vapor to ice.
This would occur at a higher altitude under this scenario, though there is the possibility it would reflect radiated energy from cloud condensation back down into the clouds.
Although, the system would ultimately reach some form of thermal equilibrium - energy radiated onto the planet equals radiation from the planet. The question is where this temperature occurs at (planck's law) and how that impacts various layers and processes.
In general, I am highly skeptical of models and simulations simply because of 'the butterfly effect' and how very small differences in values can radically change results. There is just too much potential for progressive error to take these simulations too seriously.
Generally speaking I suspect we undervalue the impact of core heating (we sit atop a giant fission reactor)/ tidal heating and overvalue the impact of solar heating.
To what extent, though, I can't say. The other problem is that this topic has generally attracted people who hate their own existence and gain a sense of gratification from denigrating humans - who latch onto any narrative that could make us into the proverbial bad guy or make them feel morally superior. To that ends, it's become a religious faith on both ends of the spectrum and is very difficult to approach from an objective stance, myself included.
Atmospheric scientists are sure to take that into account. It's an important factor in just about every simulation designed since decades ago.
With that surface temperatures even tectonic plates could stop for some time leaving the earth just like Venus, the mayor driver of tectonic plates is heat transfer (from inside to outside), if you stop that process by heating the planet surface more than the interior (1500K is hotter than the cust for several miles), then this force stops, the rock might get hotter and more fluid or plastic, but it can also fuse together binding the contact points of the plates...
For me the surface of Venus become more fluid by the action of high temperature caused the plate tectonics to stop
Wont an increase in cloud cover lead to lower temperatures since more sunlight will be reflected?
ask Venus
Yes… but also it’ll hold it longer
How much sunlight is reflected is just one factor. It is also very important how much heat can leave Earth into space. The cloud cover will reflect more sunlight but at the same time trap more of the heat that goes through anyway. The problem arise when the balance is shifted in a way that more heat is trapped that can leave the system. Then it is not important that less light can reach the ground, as even a small amount will heat up the system over time.
@@patrickm3981 Interesting. I thought total cloud cover would result in a new stable point of heat in = heat out. But perhaps you're saying the atmosphere at the cloud layer could keep heating and thus continue warming the planet without the direct sunlight?
@@sandal_thong8631If the sun disappeared, all the heat would be radiated and then the atmosphere would would freeze out and we would be back to an ice-covered planet. The greenhouse iceball effect (tm) 😊
So good I had to watch it twice
I'm going to lose a lot of sleep because of this for the next billion years.
@@user-qd3fm8te8o Even sooner if democrats are still in power. :D
Beautiful work. ❤️
Excellent video as always. It is so nice to listen to real science without a political spin. I watch your videos daily Anton. You are a gift that keeps on giving.
Great presentation again showing the considerable uncertainty in everything environmental
It's not political Anton, it's reality.
Exactly.
Not only is it political, its a religious doomsday raindancing cult. An effort seen throughout history to give man control over his surroundings for the sake of fair weather and good harvest via sacrifice. Its not science.
Everything is political to some people unfortunately, and if it isn't it they will always find a way to make it so.
@@voidstrider801sure, but science reporting should be impartial. Facts are facts it doesnt matter what certain political parties think.
A lot of people are not going to remember when the end of the earth doesn't happen within 6 or 7 years like a "friend of mine" warned me about 20 years ago. Somehow, he didn't remember, after about 10 years later. Another friend warned me that the Earth would be too hot about 10 years after Al Gore's movie. Before that, in about 1968 the Earth was going to get too cold for life.
to all the youtubers who haven't finished the video: No, increase pressure would not condense water because vapor pressure is a partial pressure that does not depend on the total pressure. "ummmm... but what if you just add a whole bunch of argon to increase pressure which would condense water, duhhhh"
Models are subject to GiGo. For instance, greenhouse forcing of clouds is not as one-sided as this paper seems to assume. Yes, denser clouds would retain more heat. However, denser water vapor clouds also have a cooling effect as well. In the tropics today clouds illustrate this cooling effect in 2 ways:
1. The high albedo of the tops of the clouds reflects a substantial portion of the solar radiation. More clouds = more reflection.
2. As the water vapor ascends the heat is dispersed upward through condensation (the heat eventually leaving the atmosphere as IR radiation) and the water falls to earth, absorbing atmospheric heat on the way down to once again evaporate, rise, condense radiating the heat further up, and falling to earth cooling the atmosphere -- wash, rinse, repeat.
How about venus have 243 earth day long rotational length. Is it possible that also helped to turn the heater to the max, and its also closer to the Sun.
The same side always faces the Sun?
@@Terran.Marine.2 no. 1 venus year is approx 225 earth days. So actually a day last longer than a year on venus. But its not tidely locked
Hello wonderful Anton, this is person.
Excellent presentation. It's also fascinating one potential implication is even greater exceptionalism. Thanks again for doing such great work!
👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐I will never get tired of your smile at the end of your videos, Anton.
Thank you for all the work you do! ❤❤❤❤❤
Water vapor is an excellent greenhouse gas.
Yeah, one of the worst.
You actaully used the term "worst" in association with the term "water vapor???"@@wolvenar
@matthewsmith8249 I assume In terms of green house effect or insulators properties, it is an excellent universal buffer, temp, pH etc. Not in terms of toxicity or harm oh20
@matthewsmith8249 I assume In terms of green house effect or insulators properties, it is an excellent universal buffer, temp, pH etc. Not in terms of toxicity or danger h2o poses chemically
@@carpathianhermit7228 With respect to is GH properties, please be somewhat comforted that its forcing properties are, like all GHGs, logaritmic
Man here I was remember the first detailed sim from the 90s.
And the study that said we were past the point of no return over a decade ago
We have been "past the point" for decades
If we're still around by then, I assume we're so technologically advanced that we either can move to somewhere else in space or that we can control the atmosphere to such an extent that we can keep the planet hospitable.
Judging by recent history I think we'll self destruct by then
Possible. But it's so hard to imagine our civilization enduring for the next 100 years without collapsing, that a million or a billion is almost inconceivable. Even _Dune_ which is set twenty thousand years in the future, will probably not be anything like our future, if we survive.
@@sandal_thong8631hard to imagine what would make it collapse.
@@sapphonymph8204 Nuclear war, drought, famine, plague. We came back from Dark Ages during the Bronze Age and after Rome fell, but who knows if we would again? I doubt if international trade shuts down there'd be Mad Max-style automobile battles, though.
@@sandal_thong8631 Dang, I love those modified vehicles. Oh well...
OK, you cover the details I was going to mention. Good job.
Where is your youtube channel where you talk about this sort of thing when Anton doesnt get there first?
@@chad0x I can speak on science all day but unless you cite sources and can spend hours editing the presentation even the best science insights would come across as a ramble. I speak of issues that as not so big when I do and comment where I need to on other channels.
Be good to see the same simulation tweaked to show the runaway indefinite freezing.
I've seen the videos about the snowball Earth, which had low carbon dioxide levels as the prime mover. But it wasn't permanent, because of the underlying ocean and plate tectonics which allows for volcanos to put gases back in the atmosphere.
For the earth to become like Venus it's rotation would have to slow down to match that of Venus's rotation, giving it too much time to heat up before the night cycle give it a chance to shead some heat. Unless we pay you the entire planet.
@@beedoox5613Yes. We may be able to stop producing greenhouse gasses (i.e. gasses with more than 2 atoms) but the Sun's luminosity will continue to increase. There are ways to mitigate the effects of its increased luminosity.
Did they account for the greatly increased albedo arising from the 100% cloud cover.
Don't ever expect scientists funded to find a specific outcome to take into account things which may hurt that outcome. In any field.
shush, you're not supposed to think about that, its a cult, did you forget?
@@wolvenar why should everyone else suffer because you know so little about science that you can't differentiate people with scientific credentials commissioned by fossile fuel execs. And scientists?
@@Jimunu Were is your degree from?
@@wolvenarSpoken like someone that doesn't understand how science works.
In our local astronomy and meteorology paper there once was an article on Venus and it's predicted hydrogen to deuterium ratio. Based on the energy of the solar wind attempting to knock off particles on the top layer of the atmosphere and they got roughly the right numbers too. Was awesome, but also quite a long time ago, so the particulars escape me, like hydrogen in Venus' top layer of the atmosphere.
In another video you discussed a theory that the earth might get kicked to a farther orbit as the sun loses mass as it’s volume grows. It would be interesting to run that sim with the earth further out. Could counter a lot of the heat.
The sun gets a lot hotter & boils away the oceans first, then the suns atmosphere partially envelops the earth, but earths orbit eventually grows in radius faster than the sun so it may survive & leave the suns atmosphere. But ahh, the temperature will still be way way, way way way way hotter than it is now, even after its no longer being cooked in the solar oven.
While the sun loses mass and pushes at Earth via its magnetic fields AND the solar wind, the orbit decays due to gravitational waves and frame dragging. The math is so difficult that Newton failed at it. I am not willing to make any predictions how this will work out.
I don't buy the claim that plate tectonics somehow limits CO2 in the atmosphere. If anything, tectonics would increase vulcanization, which puts more CO2 into the atmosphere (melting & releasing carbon & oxygen in rock formations).
Rather, life--specifically photosynthesis--extracts CO2, and geologic forces trap it (until tectonics causes volcanoes which releases it). The ocean is full of organisms which absorb carbon, die, and become part of sedimentary rock. Also, all the fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) are examples of life capturing carbon and trapping it in the geological structures).
CO2 used to be MUCH higher than it is now, and that drop would seem to be driven mostly by life. Life was so successful at converting CO2 into hydrocarbons that it decreased atmospheric CO2 to such low levels that it wasn't much higher than the minimum capable of sustaining photosynthesis. (Obviously, it will be different for each plant, but that limit has been reported to be in the ~150 ppm and the atmosphere was approaching the low 200s pre-industrial revolution. In fact, we could call plants reckless for consuming virtually the entirety of a seemingly unlimited resource of atmospheric CO2, even to the point of nearly killing themselves.)
Plants did nearly kill the planet at the end of the carboniferous period. Indeed, it is their fossilised carbon that we are releasing back into the atatmosphere. Humans are here to return equilibrium to the planet, not ruin it. Only sub-human politicians ruin things.
BTW plate tectonics ensure carbon is constantly being released with volcanism and reabsorbed with crust sublimation and weathering (sediment) - a cycle that maintains equilibrium.
Venus's slow rotation is the issue with greenhouse.
Solar radiation exists regardless of rotation. Atmospheric composition controls how much heat is retained.
@@davidrose8336 Thanks for keeping in real.
Thanks!
The Earth is unusually cool right now. Since the Cambrian period, Earth has usually been either hot and sticky, or hot and dry. So, get out there and enjoy the nice weather.
Venus's problem is its very very long day which is longer than its year and having no magnetosphere, which allows the Solar wind to strip the lighter elements of the atmosphere.
The sun is gradually getting hotter too so anything we do to prevent it ultimately will fail, but still that's a long way away in the future, long after we've already moved into space.
@@ConontheBinarian Would asteroids be massive enough? A better solution might be to stimulate more currents inside the Sun. Red dwarfs last more or less for ever, because their core currents stop helium ash building up at the star's centre. If there *is* an ash core in a star (as there is in the Sun), the fusion reaction keeps moving outwards and intensifying, making the star hotter, and aging it more quickly.
I have one stupid question.... more clouds mean more sun energy is reflected directly to space (it is called albedo?) so what about it ?
Also I don't know that in all wavelengths but clouds make a kind of shadow protecting surface from heating.
Also does more pressure change only boiling temperature or whole charactersitic of evaporation at any temperature ?
I reread the relevant parts of the Study. I was wrong they did model this.
Yes they would reflect more light away, however they would also trap most of the infarared and longerwave radiation coming from the surface of the planet within themselves and wouldn't reflect enough incoming radiation away versus the radiation trying to escape from the earths surface.
Are you saying it's cooler in the shade as opposed to direct sunlight? The model says shade is bad. Hmm
@@Pyxis10 Interesting. I'd wondered if total cloud cover would be the new stable point. But you (and others) are saying the sun would still keep heating the Earth despite the clouds and it couldn't radiate heat to space.
Shouldn't this super dense water clouds also be reflective and stop further warming?
Yep, they left that out. But I think they were also suggesting that sunlight would knock off more hydrogen into space leaving the oxygen to bond with other elements creating more carbon dioxide? Still doesn't sound right.
Venus is reflective. Very very very reflective, with an insane albedo. Also, it is a blazing inferno. I am very sure you have not taken this into account.
@@u.v.s.5583 Presumably Venus isn't getting any hotter, but has reached a stable point. People in other threads are saying a future Earth with total cloud cover would not be a stable point. They say clouds would not keep the Earth getting even hotter but GHGs and clouds would block infrared being released into space.
@@sandal_thong8631 Why should the surface of Venus not reach a steady temperature? The outgoing radiation is a nonlinear function of temperature (think T^4). So even though the temperature is stable, you still have what to us earthlings should be called a runaway greenhouse effect.
the good news is that those computer model predictions are never right.
Anton, thank you for joining the small but growing band of brothers brave enough to tell the truth about our climate and what will and won't happen.
Venus is not an example of runaway greenhouse effect. It has an atmospheric pressure 96 times of Earth. Could pressure effect temperature?
Pressure does affect temperature massively. How do you think a star shines?
There are several studies that suggest the pressure of the atmosphere of Venus alone, can hold it's temperature.
All the models that talk about "runaway greenhouse effect" that mention Venus disregard a huge factor: Venus is 28% closer to the sun as the Earth and gets about twice the radiation from the Sun because of that.
And the atmospheric pressure is about 93 bar, or 1300 PSI. That's higher than the pressure that caused the Ocean Gate sub to implode. That has a lot to do with it, too.
Yes the propaganda does not mention this vital fact. WEF lackeys everywhere.
and WAAYYYYY SLOWER ROTATING
@@esecallum What?
@@ryorai5804he's talking about the propaganda banner in the video
MIT BNL just announced it discovered how to change CO2 into methanol alcohol which can be used as fuel later or stored as a solid.
Thanks Anton. This was a very interesting study.
>
On a different note (Climate change and Political solutions).
This is why I get a little upset about the whole climate alarmism that is occurring. Yes the planets climate WILL change, be it from geological evolution, mans contribution or the mixture of both. Although the time scales to gamble on seam long the reality is we live on a constantly changing planet and ultimately it is a dyeing planet.
Shorter term and long term requires a lot of energy, and I mean a lot. We quite frankly have no plan in place to achieve that without also emitting that energy into the biosphere.
We have to become space faring (Even though that also presents its own set of survival issues), and get any industrialization (heat) associated with it off the planet. We will need to do this at some point, or we just go the way of the dinosaurs.
>
As you say in this video, and this is nothing new, Earths greenhouse effect and the natural balancing of warm temperatures involves far far more than just CO2 and CH4, yet ALL of the solutions focus on CO2/CH4 alone. I don't understand why the climate change lobby focuses on such a narrow distorted piece of the big picture rather than looking at the bigger picture :(
>
Sorry for introducing the political aspect even though you didn't want to go there, but it's the science aspect behind it that never makes sense to me so it's difficult to avoid that association when science and politics become indistinguishable.
We are supposed to be entering a cooling period. This is not political simply because some politicians are desperate for votes. The real question is why are you bent on being non-scientific and helping to increase our danger? Do you just not care about the hell we are leaving for out children? Science is based on evidence, right-wing politics is based on keeping power despite their refusal to accept that society and science continue to evolve.
We were supposed to be past racism, and yet it's clear who the confederate party still is, even after spending 20 years to flip the parties to hide their racist roots. Read _The Southern Strategy_ by Richard Nixon if you refuse to believe it. But seriously, what else would caused red state democrats to all jump ship after civil rights was passed, then by the end of the 60's they all suddenly became republicans, but still fly the confederate flag.
Take a good look at who has you convinced that it's the 2% of climatologists that are correct, and that 98% of climatologists are wrong. It's just simple math. 98 > 2. And apparently 2% is all they needed to fool a certain sect of American society. Just 2% out of 100%// I don't believe it's because they can't do math, I think it's because they are afraid "the others."
And yet they claim to be strong and courageous, but always kick down at those with the least power, and never punch up at our mutual oppressors; the wealthy elite. Nopes, instead they vote the wealthy elite into office, and ignore the fact they promised to raises taxes on the wealthy elite (themselves and their buddies, lols), then turned around and fave you and I a tiny tax break that was set to expire in 2021, but the massive break they gave themselves was of course, permanent.
Remember how we warned ya'll about bush? He said he wanted a war in the middle east even before he ran for president. Ya'll let him do two of them. Where are the WMD's. More importantly, where are those thousands of U.S. soldiers? Not to mention the opposition who turned out to be innocent, and the thousands of dead civilians.
Or how about the government shutdowns, including the one looming over us currently. And that one because a certain party seems bent in supporting our historically greatest enemy in his quest to invade Europe and defeat the Anglo-Saxons he is clearly racist against.
Witch is made extra ridiculous by the fact this is the same group of people who get all upset about racism against white people.. well, there it is. Putin hates Anglo-Saxons. Read the "victory" message Russian state media had set to automatically release after they invaded and took control of Ukraine, they quickly took it down, but not before a copy of the document was made. I suggest reading it. At the very least it makes putins plans to continue his war of imperialism into Europe and the U.S.
We pump more groundwater than we burn oil, so if water vapor is a worse green house gas, how can CO2 be the culprit in the changing climate? Maybe the sun should get more attention in this question...
It's a modern day hoax. We need *MORE* CO2 in the air for the plants, not less. 1000 ppm would be ideal. The current concentration is 400 ppm.
You have no idea how stupid that comment is, do you?
did u see Sabine Hossenfelder's new VOD about this 😅👹😅 ❤🎉 love it
Now all we need to do is figure out how to reverse this model, cleaning up the damage we've done to our own atmosphere, then making the same system work overtime on Venus to make it habitable...
Plant more trees, quit mining nickel, lithium, and cobalt, stop using plastics.... thats about it
Fat chance. As long as the people in power work hand in hand with the most egregious environmental violators, it'll only get worse.
I don't know if you realize this or not but global warming is happening yes. But we can't stop it. Do we contribute to it warming faster? Yes, but even if we could remove our foot print so to speak, it still won't stop. We are still in the ice age. Until all the ice is gone we are still in the ice age. How can I prove this? They have found palm trees fossils in the Artic and Antarctic. Palm trees just so happen to grow in tropical regions. The earth works in cycles. Pick up any book that talks about dinosaurs and it will say when dinosaurs roamed the earth it was much hotter. If you've ever noticed lizards and crocodiles don't live in the cold. These are the closed relatives to the dinosaurs. Our earth will get warmer know that for sure. Yes we were thrown into the ice age because of a meteor. But we haven't gotten out of it yet. Please look up everything that I'm talking about. My sanity isn't in question, it's societies sanity that should be questioned. But people are trusting and they are going along with the political agenda that the media is shoving down our throats. Why, because if they can push society to move down a predicted path, they can profit from this move greatly and pay off those that helped society to go in that direction. It's called capitalism!
@@xunheilvsnipezx3324 Keep mining. Stop burning fossil fuels.
plant food is not damage
A day on Venus is 243 Earth days long, which is longer than a Venusian year (225). That is rarely considered.
There is a braking effect from the extremely massive atmosphere.
1. A day is a day.
2. Runaway greenhouse effect.
3. A day is longer than a year.
4. Stupid humans say that runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the long day.
Now if we could only work out how to reverse such a thing, we would be able to make Venus a more hospitable place, and by extension Mars too.
Start with spreading its orbit to bring it near the orbit of mars, and vice versa
@@wolvenar Disrupting planetary orbits is... ill-advised to say the least. And you wouldn't need to do all that, just park solar shades in front of Venus and Earth at their respective L1s to regulate solar radiation reaching them, and Mars can get solar mirrors to collect more solar radiation to redirect towards the planet it otherwise doesn't get.
Pretty sure we'd be able to do this given 1 billion or so years. Or even 100,000. Or maybe even just 1000.
@@davidrose8336 yes I’m not sure if there is any point doing that on Venus. I wonder how long the shades could maintain the earth?
Maybe a hundred to get the technical ability to create those structures and a thousand to understand the chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans well enough to make it work.
Interesting indeed, thanks 👍😊
With the sheer amount of oxygen in the oceans, not likely. Thank you for differentiating fossil fuel causing greenhouse gases from the majority of other sources.
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Hi Anton. I'm surprised you didn't ask if Earth could turn into Uranus.
Why Uranus ?
@@joelbecane1869 Why my WHAT!?!?!?
@@erwinprivatt1997next we'll take a look at Uranus.
Earth can turn into a shithole, but why exactly into myanus?
@@sapphonymph8204 You might try but you'll probably just see a black hole. And maybe a couple of brown dwarfs too.
Hi Anton. Great content. At 2:45 you talk about b burning fossil fuels. What is your source? I couldn't find it in the description. Perhaps i missed it. I tried to check the study but it was a lot.
If Earth could easily turn into another Venus it would have long ago.
You stated an assumption as fact. You said water vapor increases the greenhouse effect of other gases. That has no basis in fact. Also water in the form of ice or clouds greatly increases the albedo of Earth thereby reflecting the Sun’s energy before it can cause any warming.
Clouds are why Venus is so cool?
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 Venus gets 91% more solar irradiance than earth. It would be much hotter if the clouds didn’t reflect 75% of the sun’s energy. Oh yea, days last 116 earth days there too.
Are you aware yet the all of the planets are going through massive changes including Mercury to Pluto
Yes. Magnetic fields are also flipping across the solar system. Goes to show just how much the Sun controls things.
Whats happening to them exactly? I googled and the news are old and vague.
dont use google as a word!!! your going to debrand google!!!
They are not. The rates of change are negligible.
It does not.@@nealwright5630
Mushrooms can reverse greenhouse gases, they can also predict the future.
mushrooms are cool...
Also pretty good in tea.
Just so everyone knows. CO2 levels in the past were many times higher than they currently are. Also, having ice caps wasn’t always a thing on earth.
True. But changing our climate's stable point from the 18th century to the time of the dinosaurs does not seem to be a desirable goal. Certainly losing a lot of productive and valuable coastline would be economically devastating, not to mention the extreme weather we've been having and disruption to the jet stream(s).
Interesting. Was there perchance a global civilization at that time reliant on stable agricultural yields and significant sources of fresh water to function? No? Then maybe that's an irrelevant comparison
@@AC-kf6mo If you mean the time of the dinosaurs, then that's nonsensical.
I'd say a Mediterranean Dark Age due to climate change around 1000 BC would be a good comparison. In that case, civilization came back. But if civilization today collapses, there might not be a way to come back.
There is a beautiful irony that the thing responsible for life on earth will inevitably be what takes it all away
Not more than the irony that the same atoms that make up living beings, when becoming slightly heavier, form the critical mass of a nuclear weapon. It is equivalent of the fact that all this wonderous and beautiful world is made up of a few elementary particles and 4 fundamental forces (probably)
Hey Anton, love your content and your videos but PLEASE avoid the urge, no matter how small and incremental to creep the titiles towards click-bait. You DO NOT need to do this to maintain or grow your followers and its one of the things we love about your channel.
Surprise discoveries about the runaway grant effect... 🤭
The concept of green house gas misses the factor of 5 magnifying glasses facing each other
To be a person who thinks scientists are the real issue moneygrabbers and not fossil fuel boardrooms with maximizing short term profit degrees.
@@JimunuTry working in a lab funded as such, and get back to us. Yeah it really IS like that.
@@Jimunu the value of the renewables industry is not far behind global oil industry, yet it provides only a fraction of the energy in the global market. switching fully is going to empty your pockets like nothing in history. you are conjuring the biggest transfer of wealth up the chain ever.
@@littlefish9305 This is not the biggest problem of renewables. The price of batteries is. And it would need miracle to become a potential solution.
The one point that sticks out to me is, "our planet is maybe just a little bit too lucky" at 12:00. Makes you go hum.
TY Anton for this hot video on a heated topic. 🌎 +🔥 =🥵
Lol
Ca you send me a link to the study, please? I would like to take a look their science, so I guess papers. Thanks?
This is absolutely incredible. We learn that Earth is almost maximally hot for what could sustain complex life.
So anything warmer which is the best guess prognosis might be a risky chance to take?
Um...No.
The planet WAS at the higher end for temperatures, 400 million years ago.
Currently the Earth is in an interglacial period of an ice age, and has been on a downward temperature trend overall, for hundreds of millions of years.
That's not true at all. The Earth had much higher and lower average temperatures and noticeably higher atmospheric pressure than today for most of its history. We're sitting in some pretty comfortable and moderate temperatures right now.
@@benjamintherogue2421 TBH the planet could do with a few degrees higher average temperature, human coastal cities would need to be moved, but massive areas would be opened up for agriculture in the sub-polar regions of N.A. Europe, and Asia.
@@benjamintherogue2421id like it about 5 degrees hotter please. This cold weather is for the birds.
I love that globe behind you. It would make an awesome screen saver. I love living on it too, kind of 😅.
Same 😂 here... God's beautiful gardens and the clowns that grace them!🙃🫠🤪🤨🤐😴🤥
Interesting simulation, I had not thought about the effect of water vapor on atmospherics heating.
The ipcc don't want you to know about it. They've been lying to you for decades
well water vaopr from teh soalr wind is giong to kill us all even if we stop useing fossle fuels anyway. thats what they are notr eling you aobut the greenhosue climaite change issue is not giong to stop by spoting useing fossle fuels won't stop the water vaopr from the sun makeing earth hotter and hotter if we don't use most of the erta wator vaopr coeming from the soalr wind for space travel to keep earth from natruly having a nutral green hosue runway efect from the extra wator vapor anyway.
It has the opposite effect, temperature data shows that. At certain temperatures there is so much evaporation and cloudcover happening that it will literally trigger an iceage.
most people don't, they've been scared to death about co2
Technically any molecule with more than two atoms can be a greenhouse gas.
We can stop calling them “fossil fuels” as we know that heat/pressure creates complex hydrocarbons all over the universe. Also thanks for acknowledging the role of water vapor. Let’s also talk about the “greenhouse effect” would see elevations in temps at all levels of the atmosphere and not just at ground level.
A carbon tax will change the weather
the concept behind a sugar tax is that excess sugar in foods causes a notable and severe decline in the health of the populace at large which creates an increased cost on society primarily in the form of healthcare (but also reduced productivity among other things). You tax sugar to pay for the increased cost of healthcare. The point isn't to magically make food healthier, the point is to address the hidden cost in products with added sugar.
@@kyleyjs
Simple question.
Where did all the carbon come from that has been trapped in the coal and other hydro carbons?
We are living in a glorious interval and need to be thankful for that. We can be sad that we will not be here always or we can be glad that we are here now.
This is honesty my greatest fear
We’ll all be gone by then so don’t worry about it. Besides, Earth will eventually fry whatever we do. More pressing is whether you’d support totalitarianism to save Earth.
Fear not... earths climate has so many rebalancing mechanisms that we don't have an issue.
Anton neglected to mention that the temperature forcing mechanism follows a log curve. Measured to be ~1C for each doubling of concentration. So another @C would require is to get close to 2200ppm. a
What about bears or public speaking?
@@mariobeck3798 haha thanks, didn’t claim it was a rational fear, but is a fear of mine.
One thing I'm really curious about is: once this process has completed, can it ever be reversed? For instance, if the planet was knocked into an orbit that was much further from the star, so it became much colder.
Venus has no moon
Maybe it was Venus's moon is what slammed into Earth.
Runaway greenhouse effect IS possible but we do not have climate models good enough t make ANY predictions (beyond average temperature which you can predict with two equations in an Excel sheet). And, yes, aspect that needs to better described are the effects of water clouds and vapor and really other sub-grid effects.
We need a full carbon cycle mode. None exist right now. We have an -inadequate - atmospheric model and some heuristic and simple models for land effects.
And we are nowhere near developing a full carbon cycle model because (i) it is order of magnitude more difficult than the atmospheric model,
(ii) we have nowhere near the amount of data needed, and (iii) people are focused on atmospheric models and making dire predictions.
So we have already had atmosphere compositions that had this issue and we are still here with no venus like conditions....
With weaker sun radiation and no human environmental destruction.
@@Jimunu When do you think the sun radiation got stronger? You think the sun was weaker 17 million years ago? 60 million years ago? A billion years ago? Do you even know when the last major co2/greenhouse gas event(s) occurred?
@@tvviewer4500 potholer54 has good explanatory videos on that probably. And it got gradually stronger. Good to know you avoided to respond on the human destruction of ecological resilience.
Thanks Anton
We need more green taxes 😂
Or just stop poisoning ourselves voluntarily. But where’s the profit in that?
Nothing more taxes and increased bureaucracy can’t fix!
That is why the 100 EUR banknote is green! 🤣
My heating bill is killing me... Can't we speed up the greenhouse effect?