If we stop emitting... then what..?

[@ClimateAdam]

Huge thanks to climate scientists Joeri Rogelj - twitter.com/JoeriRogelj/ - and Andrew Dessler - twitter.com/AndrewDessler - for looking over the script for this video! Give them a follow - you're sure to learn loads!

[@tiso8695]

Hey Adam, are you in LinkedIn? Just wanted to know about the Universities in Europe that offers Masters in Climate Science & is affordable for someone living in Global South. Or if you can comment back here only if you wish.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

no mention of the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf - the world's largest ocean shelf with a highly probable "abrupt eruption" (Julia Steinbach, PNAS, 2021) scenario. In fact the methane is already spiking out of the arctic for this very reason yet the IPCC tries to dismiss it just as you did by claiming that reduction of methane emissions will offset the increased heat of the reduced aerosol masking effect. oops! Nice try by ignoring ecology.

[@hitreset0291]

Not concerned if fossil fuels heat or cool our climate ~ I am concerned and against its further use because it is such a dirty, polluting energy source.

[@Daniel-qc9vf]

I seem to remember there was a prediction of Man made global cooling in the 1970’s and the start of a new ice age. I suppose the narrative changed about 30-40 years ago from new ice age to global warming disaster. It would be very informative to create a video which walks through the change in climate experts thinking during the transition from global ice age to global warming.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@Daniel-qc9vf Daniel what you're referring to is a magazine article on Global Dimming or the Aerosol Masking Effect. Daniel Rosenfeld's research has shown recently that the Aerosol Masking Effect is twice as bad as previously thought. This means a 40% decrease in burning coal and diesel (creating sulfur particulates that reflect photons) will heat up Earth another 1 degree Celsius global average. So this is what is referred in the video - it was never an Ice Age - that is a myth. In fact science in the 1970s still focused on global warming. It's just since it was in a magazine - Newsweek or Time - then it got latched onto by the denialists about global warming. Indeed since the heat is not just an average but localized that means the interior of continents - the "breadbaskets" - where food is grown at scale WILL experience a 5 degree Fahrenheit hotter than the global average increase - and so it is true that decreasing coal and diesel does cause the leading increase in atmospheric temperature right now. The real issue is the side effect of what that does to the Arctic where there is 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane that is starting to release. the Arctic is heating up 4 times faster than the global average heat increase. So the loss of the arctic ice will also double global warming and the methane released out of the world's largest ocean shelf - in the arctic - will double global warming a second time!!

[@proffessorclueless]

This is exactly the same advice as 40 years ago and now me emit about 80% more CO2 than we did back then and our yearly output keeps increasing. If we carry on following this advice we will be emitted over 66 giga tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The fossil fuel moguls of today are the same as the tobacco companies of the 1960's. They know it is bad for us but they will do everything in their power to ensure we carry on spending money harming our future.

[@Build_Secrets]

CO2 emissions in the western world peaked over 50 years ago. Emissions from developed nations have been falling for longer than most people have been alive. Thing is. The "developing" world produces more co2 than the developed world, are exempt from all climate accords, and only plan to increase emissions. Unless you can get China and India to reduce emissions, there is no point on reducing western emissions at all. Instead we should put money into research and development, for new energy technology, carbon capture technology, and adapting to life at higher temperatures.

[@lepetitroquet9410]

To be honest: - The EU's CO2 emissions seem to be back to 1970's levels. - The USA is under its 1990 level of emission So efforts have been made. Despite everything.

[@proffessorclueless]

@@lepetitroquet9410 Yes efforts have been made but our planet only has one atmosphere and the figures show that those efforts have only stopped the situation from being even worse.

[@lepetitroquet9410]

@@proffessorclueless Yes, they did indeed ^^. And I'm glad those efforts were made and the situation isn't way worse than it already is. I'm also glad the political will is still there, at least to a certain degree.

[@proffessorclueless]

@@lepetitroquet9410 It's seems more like political posturing and token gestures given the seriousness of the situation.

[@AriBenDavid]

Right now, 88% of CO2 emissions in Canada are due to wildfires. I don't have global numbers. Doing something about this should be a priority.

[@cedricrust9953]

Could you link me the source for the 88% number? I haven't been able to find it anywhere.

[@montithered4741]

Sources and evidence or it didn’t happen

[@AriBenDavid]

Sorry, it has long passed as news. I don't know.@@cedricrust9953

[@bmos02]

There's a Guardian article "Wildfires turn Canada’s vast forests from carbon sink into super-emitter" which says the 2 billion tonnes emitted by wildfires is actually 3x the amount emitted by economic activity every year.

[@kaptainkrampus2856]

I have an encyclopedia from 1877 (Meyers Conversation lexikon) which states some very interesting infos about 'carbon dioxide': The level back then was 0,04% ... which is 400ppm - yes, the same like today, after 100 years of burning 'fossil fuels'. Furthermore it states: "flows out in large quantities on active volcanoes and in many places from cracks and fissures in the ground" or "Carbonic acid salts form a main component of the earth's crust, namely the carbonic acid lime (limestone) that makes up entire mountains" What percentage (of the 0,04%) CO2 emissions are actually man made - how much is natural? Answer: 5% vs 95% So, you got 400ppm (which is 400 out of a million, or 4 our of 10.000 - please picture that with 4 in red in a crowd of 10.000 blue people - and 95% of the 4 red ones is NATURAL ... and we are all talking about that 5% - which is killing the planet ... did I get that right? Is there a proof for this actually somewhere - or do we have to believe these people and politicians (who are actually the same ones, that coerced you into these jibby jabs ...) ... rings a bell, yet?

[@danielsykes7558]

I have always respected Adam's perspective, but my crush on him just keeps growing and it's not okay

[@voiceinthenoise3357]

Maybe you've already done/are doing a video on this, but I'd love to see your response to the idea that CO2 is greening the planet (obviously plants use CO2, but the implication from climate change deniers is that this alleged increased uptake will essentially fix our mess and halt/reverse CO2 induced global heating.) Great video btw.

[@FenTour]

50% correct sadly 50% wrong.

[@mhirasuna]

At net-zero, the average surface temperature may stabilize but the earth will continue to gain heat, which goes into melting ice and warming the deep oceans. The sea level will continue to rise and the oceans will continue to acidify. Decarbonization is not a complete solution. We need to focus on creating abundant, cheap and clean energy. Current nuclear fission technologies have the potential to provide the energy we need to adapt to climate change. But we need nuclear regulations based on fact instead of irrational fears.

[@Encephalitisify]

I got news for all the younger people. The older generation isn’t going to stop. They don’t care about you.

[@BiiigChimpinSince84]

No one cares about anyone outside of their circle of friends and family. Older people, younger people... that's our society for ya. Gotta rethink society if we want a chance to survive the century.

[@Encephalitisify]

@@BiiigChimpinSince84 agree

[@cheryllee81]

Why didn't you bring up the oceans? The reason there isn't more CO2 in the atmosphere is the oceans are a CO2 sink. The problems with this are acidification of oceans leading to ecosystem disruption AND warming of the oceans disrupting food chains, livelihoods, and sea level rise. Even if it were possible for everyone to stop emitting greenhouse gas, which it's not, I think we're in for a nightmare by 2030. I hope I'm wrong.

[@ImproveYourMagic]

If you are wrong, you are not wrong by much. Thank you for showing interest in climate change and the rapid rise to 2.5°C in the 2050s.

[@olllloollllo]

I don't plan to have children and I can care less about the future of civilization. Give me a reason to care.

[@daniellarson3068]

Tipping point has been reached - Sorry fellas.

[@sergiorgreis8534]

Thank you for the video, Adam. I have three questions (I'm not a climate scientist): 1) In Hansen et al. preprint, they show (fig. 13) that current emission levels are associated with 2.5C warming. Isn't this an indication that we have a lot of "committed warming" in the pipeline (i.e., the equilibrium temperature given ~420 ppm is about 2.5C; therefore, there is a lag between the current and equilibrium temperature)? 2) In the same paper (and if I understand correctly), they propose a new climate sensitivity. Instead of 0.8 W/m2, they argue that the right value is 1.2 W/m2. If this is correct (and if we accept the findings from the seminal Solomon's paper on the irreversibility of past emissions), doesn't it imply that temperatures will go up much higher than .3C even if we stop emissions now? 3) Many people talk about CO2 equivalent, but I wonder if all the effects from other GHGs are included to estimate climate sensitivity and forcing. I've seen NOAA claim we're currently at 523 ppm (which is pretty close to 2XCO2 (Hansen and colleagues argue that current forcing levels are above 4 W/m2, which is already equivalent to 2XCO2). Are equilibrium warming models accounting for CO2eq (and not CO2 only)? Thank you, and keep up the excellent work.

[@mitchellsmith4601]

Does ANYONE think it’s possible to get the USA, China, and India to bring their emissions to zero? Nope. Never. The feedback loop is set, it’s only a matter of time now.

[@dislikepineapples]

At a certain point it gets pretty expensive for the world to do business as usual. Capitalism will actually fight it self, but it's way cheaper and fairer to start early on. I mean beach cities will eventually drown in the next centuries which will hit cities like New York really hard it nothing happens. So "never" is clearly not a viable solution. It's more about how bad will it get. It's an illusion that industrial nations can withstand regular year-long droughts and destroyed food-webs of insects and so on

[@davidreynolds2183]

Nothing Happens.

[@johnnemeth6913]

There's a lot of disagreement about how the climate works. However, one thing we can say with absolute certainty is that the climate has been in a constant state of change for over four billion years (basically since the planet started forming an atmosphere). Anybody that says the climate will stabilize when humans do or don't do something is not a scientist, but rather an activist. BTW, why would i believe the guy that said NYC would be water long ago? Not to mention sabotaging the air conditioning system the night before making his presentation to Congress. James Hanson has no credibility.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Wait what about the aircon? 🍿 👀

[@pathackett1195]

Excellent video. But a wee nitpick. You do say that we need to reduce emissions by transitioning to renewables. However there is a much easier way to reduce emissions by reducing or eliminating needless consumption. This could have several times the effectiveness compared with transitioning but is nearly always overlooked. Keep up the good videos

[@ClimateAdam]

Absolutely reducing consumption would reduce emissions. But since (net) emissions need to go to zero, we also need to transition.

[@pathackett1195]

@@ClimateAdam Indeed. It's just that we tend to focus much more on transitioning. For the "developed" world where consumption is very high at a considerably smaller cost we could reduce the problem by several times. I realise that it is an unpopular choice but that's human beings for you. Imagine if we fail to address the unpopular consumption side of this... by the time we get our present emissions down to zero the economic growth that every country is chasing will likely mean the emissions then may be far greater than today's level.

[@ilfark2]

@@ClimateAdam "consumption" is a bit misleading; there are a host of materially useless, high emission activities we could stop tomorrow (as covid proved), by decree, were we in a WWII mobilization context... soon after we could stop many more activities (e.g., require all public and private bureaucrats work from home ((i.e., close/repurpose offices for housing)), ban flying except for organs or other emergencies, ban all block chain activities, advertising, fast fashion, landscaping, private vehicles to be replaced by public transit until the transition to walking communities takes place... there's quite a body of so called "de-growth" scenarios that point out we could cut a lot of emissions very quickly most of them having to do with altering/replacing emission intensive public/private infrastructures (offices, highways, high rises); better still democratically plan a new society (will have to happen sooner or later) that provide food, shelter, healthcare, education to all and set everyone up in walkable communities and we could use about half the energy we currently do

[@gamingtonight1526]

Nice to know what would happen if we stopped emitting CO2, expect we all know we won't. The world put more CO2 into the atmosphere in 2022 than in the previous 125 years! CO2 emissions are expected to rise another 4% in 2023!

[@hansjansen7047]

And when the co2 starts to diminish the plants will stop proliferating and we will have less food and we will have to resort to more dense nutrition like meat.

[@ImproveYourMagic]

There were plants before the year of 1760 so you can let go of your concern. However, the world wide crop failures of a 2.5°C world will create famine to livestock. You will lose your freedom to eat bacon cheeseburgers. You will also lose the freedom to eat any fruit or vegetable at your whim. Thank you for showing interest in climate change and the rapid rise to 2.5°C in the 2050s.

[@tommclean7410]

Great explanation of what happens when we stop emitting. I especially liked knowing that the heat-bump caused by losing the aerosols are included in the forecast for what happens if we stop emitting. I don't care for the reference to nuclear, that industry is just a boondoggle of government funding to keep the nuclear ideologists happy. Wind, solar, water, and storage are much faster and cheaper.

[@ClimateAdam]

nuclear *could* play an important role in complete decarbonisation. I think it's an open question (and highly dependent on the country, and developments in other technologies - crucially storage) how big that role will be.

[@s3tione]

Nuclear seems like a reasonable option given that not every region is going to have good storage options beyond expensive and resource hungry batteries.

[@toyotaprius79]

So it's the private ownership model that's holding back nuclear, as well as wind, solar and storage?

[@oleonard7319]

right now nuclear is the only way to create a baseload system without fossil fuels ( in areas with out waterfalls)

[@oleonard7319]

​​@@toyotaprius79 what is holding us back on storage is finding an easy to produce storage medium that is made from a plentiful resource. That comes close to lithium's storage capacity

[@carlpeters8690]

The world has been warmer in the past - and LIFE THRIVED! CO2 has also been higher in the past - and LIFE THRIVED! Heating also preceded increased CO2 so how does that work?

[@yogawithrosie3805]

Not human life, though

[@ImproveYourMagic]

Not today’s mammals or marine life.

[@TF2Sci]

Scientific education is the best way to help the public make informative decisions about their politicians and carbon footprint. Cheers to making great videos like this!

[@thomascalvert1800]

Very useful - thanks Climate Adam!

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks Thomas!

[@darthvader5300]

@@ClimateAdam Ever heard of Planktos? It is an American company that aims to KILL THE GLOBAL WARMING NARRATIVE BY DUMPING HALF A TANKER OF WATER SOLUBLE IRON OXIDE MADE FROM PURIFIED IRON ORE INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. Even just half a tanker full of water soluble purified or raw iron oxide ore dust powder mixed with an equal volume of water soluble silica sand dust powder can create titanic phytoplanktonic blooms that will RIP OUT ALL CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the planetary atmosphere that IT WILL CREATE AN ICE AGE ALL OVER EUROPE AND ALL OVER CANADA. Only Russia will survive for it has been preparing for an Ice Age for decades!

[@JL-qs2tb]

NOAA CO2 sensors could not detect the missing emission back in 2020 during the COVD shutdowns. EIA estimated global fossil fuel consumption went down by 6% to 8%. They admit, they can not detect this change in consumption.

[@jordanhalmosman9957]

Why would you expect that change in consumption to be significant, given all of the inter-related environmental issues and connections that Adam miserably fails to mention?

[@Suemack24]

Aerosol masking? MEER project? Prof Guy McPherson’s review of only peer reviewed papers… live your best life as it’s not going to stop.

[@michaelbindner9883]

Look at US temp data. We passed the tipping point long ago

[@curtkruse3092]

If we could set the concentration of CO2 at any level we chose, what level would that be? What is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere? What is the ideal level for global temperature, for human health, for plants? Are these values different? What is the overall best value taking these all into consideration?

[@grnhrntskato]

Good question. All the experts agree. They don't know and can't anwert this question. Nor do they have any idea how much temperatures are effected by a given amount of carbon. More inconvienient, what was the source of warming and significant changes on the planet that drained the prairies which were once covered with water. Remanants of trees in Greenland where they can no longer grow? We these changes the results of carbon in the air? If so, from where? Certainly not from human activity thousands of years ago. Thus far, all the alarmist "experts" such as this gent have been absolutely wrong. No reason to believe them now since they haven't been able to answer these questions as they relate to carbon and human activity.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

The answer to that question I always hear is that advanced human civilization and the present balance in nature came within a certain window of conditions. Everything is now well adapted to these conditions and going away from them, means uncertainty, problems and costs, huge costs if whole coastal areas (within 50 years? ) need to move. But I always say that, it would all not be such a problem if there was a promise to help everybody. But no, the real world is selfish and poor countries will suffer and if mass migration starts, people could get an cold, even heartless right wing government reception.

[@grnhrntskato]

@@jean-pierredevent970 There are two truths about humans in general and changing climate. First and formost, humans are animals with a strong survival instinct. Not a strong "moral" instinct. Morality and the rules of civilization only occur because it is the self interest our species to survive. Rules for getting along and not murdering each other is a big part of that. Given that, as we have done thoughout history, when our geopgraphy changes due to erosion, changing climate etc. we adapt and move. Keep in mind that any change in climate takes thousands of years. Doesn't happen in the span of a single lifetime. Unlike what climate alarmists would have us believe, real scientists have demonstrated we are not in a climate emergency but the normal change of climate. There are no more tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires world wide than before. The significant change is that there are far fewer deaths because of our modern predictive weather systems, ability to mobilize at-risk populations, install preventive measures and deliver medical and logistical support. That gets lost in all the noise.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

There are a few scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Happer, Christy, Spencer, Dyson etc who were/are not agreeing. Yes, that is true. I have listened to them. They might have good points but miss proof otherwise there would not even be mentioning of climate change and this also on the websites of the fossil fuel industry. It's unlikely that these very rich companies are bought by somebody. They would really wish somebody could prove it's all a bad joke. About extreme weather events, it's hard to prove any event is directly caused by climate change. . So real scientists, not journalists or politicians, are very careful with blaming climate change for an individual event. However they can conclude things with statistics. There are not more hurricanes, that is not said on good sources but when they occur they can be more powerful. The droughts and wildfires One can look it up. The climate changes naturally but we see a too fast and strong signal which can't be explained naturally. The climate is chaotic and there are many things which influence it. So one year it's cold, another warm. We expect ups and downs with no clear trend. However this is not what is seen. The global temperature keeps rising. The sources who say it's not, were forced to correct their data after errors were discovered. (Christy ) So this irregular but still continuous trend upwards can't be explained by internal energy bottled up in the system which just changes places all the time. Something is continuously doing a"forcing". We can say it's the end of the little ice age but even then we must ask what exactly controls this ending since it's not like the sun got warmer. I think we have no alternative but to believe scientists .. or not. We hardly can't go measure everything ourselves. There might be a pressure on scientists but I don't see how all these different countries with all their own scientists would not come out with their own "real data" suddenly. It's hard to lie about glaciers or Greenland melting. Everybody sees things too. Recently I heard again of a place, always open for skiing but they are now closing. It's too warm, even for making artificial snow.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Biomass from plants was higher in Mesozoic and much warmer +10c. Based on cold exposure deaths for humans I would suggest +2 over now (+3.5) perhaps? Beavers and Polar bears both expanding numbers in the Arctic at current temps Impossible to calculate what is best for All Things

[@dont.beknown5622]

Thank you. You are a needed content provider.

[@glareeedowotb]

Is it possible to do a Q&A about climate change? I personally have some niche question that I can't find the answers for on the internet and the way you present climate change is very funny and informative. I would love to see something like that in the future

[@xyincognito]

what kind of questions? Would be curious to know

[@mikev2116]

Please post your questions, I am sure they are amusing 😊

[@martiansoon9092]

Ice melting means more dark surfaces where solar radiation can be absorbed. Meaning more heating... This is one way that Earth will keep on warming after we shutdown ghg emissions. Same goes for sea ice. And so many other things. But they start balancing sooner, when we stop emissions.

[@thomasvirta7904]

Thank you! You mentioned nuclear, but ""on both costs and speed, renewable energy sources beat nuclear. Every euro invested in new nuclear plants thus delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable power. In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO2 emissions." (Joule Volume 7, Issue 8, 16 August 2023, Pages 1675-1678). Maybe you could make a video about nuclear? Thanks again and all the best from Finland!

[@ClimateAdam]

absolutely - but we don't just need to decarbonise... we need to decarbonise entirely. and renewables need help to do this. nuclear could play an important role in this, but how big that role could be depends a lot on the specifics of the country and what other technologies we have and how affordable they are (storage, long distance power, etc, etc). but yes, a video dedicated to nuclear would be fun at some point!

[@killingtimeitself]

@@ClimateAdam as a self educated nuclear nerd a video deep dive on nuclear would be fascinating.

[@qchtohere8636]

F* if we do, F* if we don't.... No one in the newer generations stood a chance.... Why stop now? But hey, our species may trascend at the end... As the dumb hominids that burnt out their own atmosphere (if aliens reach us someday, although only if idiocy is not an evolutionary dead-end everywhere). Anyway, "thoughts and prayers". Seems as effective now as any other "effort".

[@DAna-yc7ym]

You're a precious youtuber. Thanks.

[@SPLICEKNIGHT]

did adam mention anything about tipping points having noticably already been reached in certain places? Like canada's boreal forest has flipped to a carbon source, as has parts of the amazon, and permafrost and other methane sources are already eclipsing human emissions now, so I think the fact he hasn't mentioned that at some point, the world takes over from human sources and eclipses the output kinda makes this sound like he's trying to tamp down on panic, or mention that things are still salvagable.

[@dianewallace6064]

Agreed. Many tipping points will tip (go superlinear) all at once and amplify each other. "It's not an apocalypse, it's an adventure." That said, I love Adam's factual and entertaining presentations.

[@HaldaneSmith]

At the end, Adam says that these feedbacks plus the removal of aerosols can be balanced by the elimination of methane. He also says feedback loops will increase 1.5° warming to 1.7° but I suppose if we go beyond 1.5° the feedback increase would be greater.

[@dianewallace6064]

@@HaldaneSmith The problem is the Earth itself is currently emitting a great deal of methane from dams, wetlands, permafrost thaw and even methane clathrate thaw. That's why sliceknight wrote "permafrost and other methane sources are already eclipsing human emissions now",

[@HaldaneSmith]

@@dianewallace6064 @dianewallace6064 Adam replied in another comment that they haven't reached a runaway tipping point so these feedbacks will diminish rather than amplify. I'm more concerned that Adam said that sea level rise will continue for centuries even after we stop emitting C02.

[@Onequietvoice]

You are falling into the trap of "Its too late - there is nothing we can do!" trap. The last desperate arguement promulgated by the fossil fuel industry which has no arguements left. Don't go there. Don't forget your personal responsibility in areas where you can take action.

[@marksmith1709]

Carbon fuels are a limited resource. The issue, when are they gone? So as you dramatize your climate change story, I hope you don't freeze to death due to the lack of carbon. Don't say its a long way off. Your great grandkids will not thank you for burning their carbon, which they could have used for high temp applications or for petro chemical apps. You on the other hand used natural gas for patio heaters in February.

[@ggb5583]

Your channel deserves rapid growth! Your videos are witty and informative whilst handling some quite doomful topics

[@arcturus681]

Quite the opposite on every count

[@erikolsen6269]

We need more videos like this.....and climate action from politicians

[@geraldfreibrun3041]

It would be interesting if you could talk about the geo-political implications of climate change, personally I think it veers between crisis and opportunity.

[@felixthecharlie7711]

I just noticed your hair. I think in the next decade people will buzz all their hair clean, real talk.

[@davestagner]

That’s the problem with kids these days. Their hair’s too short and their music isn’t loud enough!

[@rklauco]

I love the "media missing" part on carbon sucking from atmosphere, well done! :)

[@fbkintanar]

Even if global warming were to plateau some decades after the world's net emissions reached zero, some tipping elements like tropical coral reefs might take centuries or millennia to recover. Maybe there will gradually be new coral reefs in places at a higher latitude, but places like the Philippines where I live might lose a lot of our fish breeding grounds and marine biodiversity. I hope scientists in places like Australia, where the Great Barrier Reef faces similar issues can come up with countermeasures that can be implemented in places like our near shore areas. We have marine science researchers too, but probably not as high-powered as in other countries with advanced science and tech.

[@real_pattern]

is it true that according to current best understanding, it takes ~37.5 years for 60% of the warming from emissions to take place due to the thermal inertia of the oceans? so some of the observed warming (

[@KannKeinenSinnMachen]

5:00 the media pending joke was hilarious! :D :D

[@FacingFuture]

great presentation. Sometimes we get push back for smiling through the terrible news we're talking about. You've managed to walk the line...thanks!

[@illiteratemochi4150]

As a current master’s student, I hate to say it but, we’ve already done massive amounts of damage that may not be fixable any time soon. Even in the best case scenario of we stop all emissions tomorrow, there’s still a lot we just can’t fix. And as disheartening as that is, waiting is only going to increase that damage and make things worse.

[@jimfairgray4607]

Nice shot of water vapour coming out of chimneys at 5:42. Isn't that a greenhouse gas as well? Why was life flourishing on earth during the Cambrian period when CO2 levels were at 7000ppm, 15x higher than today?

[@fromnorway643]

The Sun was 4-5 % fainter than today, so it took about 7 times more CO₂ just to offset that. According to most temperature estimates that I have seen, the Cambrian was in fact quite a warm period, but far from as warm as what 7000 ppm of CO₂ would have produced today.

[@walllight15]

Thank you so much! I have asked this myself multiple times in the last years, but wasn't able to find a proper answer. Now I know it :)

[@ClimateAdam]

You are so welcome!

[@darthvader5300]

@@ClimateAdam Ever heard of Planktos? It is an American company that aims to KILL THE GLOBAL WARMING NARRATIVE BY DUMPING HALF A TANKER OF WATER SOLUBLE IRON OXIDE MADE FROM PURIFIED IRON ORE INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. Even just half a tanker full of water soluble purified or raw iron oxide ore dust powder mixed with an equal volume of water soluble silica sand dust powder can create titanic phytoplanktonic blooms that will RIP OUT ALL CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the planetary atmosphere that IT WILL CREATE AN ICE AGE ALL OVER EUROPE AND ALL OVER CANADA. Only Russia will survive for it has been preparing for an Ice Age for decades!

[@waynecartwright-js8tw]

love our induction hob

[@martiansoon9092]

Seaweed/kelp farming is one of the most promising solutions for pretty large scale carbon removal. But even that is tiny compared to fossil burning that is record high as we speak. Oil demand is at record high too. August 2023 we hit 1,5C and El Niño is just starting to show its might. In coming years, we will end much over 1,5C warming by 30 year averages. And we are heading to 3-4C world by 2100 (given pledges are failing and not sanctioned). Keep in mind that every 0,1C warming means 100 million deaths (many recent studies points that way). Also don't forget aerosol effects after dirty fossil fuel burning is shutdown. IPCC predicts it to be 0,6C, while Hansen says its much higher. So we are currently with aerosol effect at 1,8-2,55C. Paris goals are not reachable anymore without nonexisting, not even in laboratory experiments, large ghg removal schemes.

[@l.marcel7283]

Great video

[@robertcartwright4374]

One of the good things I get from a video like this is it reminds me that climate scientists have already thought of the questions that arise in my mind. Of course they have - they're professional climate scientists, it's their job and their passion to think of these things, and they've thought of everything I have, plus a whole, whole lot more - but it's reassuring to see those questions asked and answered. A side note; at 6:08 Adam says losing the aerosols would cause 'an immediate bump in warming', which I guess is the same as 'an immediate bump in forcing', so he's right, but I think it sounds too much like 'an immediate bump in warmth', which would be incorrect. Climate science, even at my layman's level, is so slippery!

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

Most do it becuase they are paid to support the narrative. If they don't, they don't get paid, or lose their jobs. Simple.

[@BiiigChimpinSince84]

Without additional intervention, it WILL BE a bump in warming homie. It's not good, we're pretty screwed.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Usually do find a paper has been there when have an idea... but one or two papers doesn't end a topic

[@ChimpJacobman]

​@DrSmooth2000 not a native English speaker? That made no sense. Orig Poster... you're trying to draw a difference between a bump in warming vs warmth? If we lose all the aerosols, it will get warm "over night" geologically as in within a couple years. It will take hundreds (methane) or thousands (CO2) of years before reduced GHG makes up for the loss of aerosols. Not sure how Adam misses this considering he's a fancy scientist. Most scientists get this, not Adam apparently. I'd take his opinions as "green growth" washing, a dangerous ideology for sure. Not looking good for humanity. So little time left, only hope is degrowth + artificial albedo enhancement.

[@DrSmooth2000]

@@ChimpJacobman chimps have certain deficits that we don't often fail to accommodate. So here goes: "Usually find a paper has been there before [previously covered a topic] However one or two papers on a subject is not the end of discussion on any topic" Hope that helped 🙏🍌

[@rebeccarivers4797]

This is only true if you discount decreasing sea ice, more water area from rising oceans, increased wild fires will increase CO2, melting permafrost will increase methane, methane hydrates will decompose and come out of the oceans, and about a dozen other natural feedbacks that would continue to raise the global temperatures for centuries after the end of burning oil. Adam wants you to focus on emissions instead of the energy imbalance. The energy imbalance is what causes global warming, not emissions alone. Even if human CO2 and CH4 emissions went to zero over night, there would still be an increased amount of CO2 and CH4 entering the atmosphere from these natural sources. Stopping emissions doesn’t unmelt ice and permafrost.

[@MyKharli]

The analogy i use is GHG is a blanket , like a blanket you do not immediately reach equilibrium and warm up instantly . Anyway GHG are rising at there fastest ever rate and atm methane levels are exploding as it looks like wetlands are drying up..a tipping point is being passed .Also water vapour is a GHG and that's rising too .Also its no good the oceans absorbing more heat and CO2 because of ocean acidification ,,,

[@nerdyandawesome]

Is it possible that the content of this video is only right if we ignore the tipping points? What I mean is: If we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, not just the glaciers would still melt, but also the permafrost, giving off more and more greenhouse gases, and the rainforest would still gradually die, giving off more and more greenhouse gases etc. Which would in turn heat up the globe some more and so on. Right? Or did I miss something?

[@vjross2480]

Bracing for impact.

[@drawyrral]

How much land has been covered by concrete, planet wide?

[@stephenchallis1592]

I don't know the answer to the actual question you asked, but about 1% of the 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 area of our planet is covered by built up areas, in the sense of towns, village, cities and infrastructure (including roads). Remember that land is only about 30% of our planets area. A reasonable amount of this 1% of 30% must be concrete in some form.

[@Matheusreisl]

If trees could vote they will definetly vote for more CO2.

[@ImproveYourMagic]

Trees would lose that election in a landslide to all Marine life alone.

[@iceboi5983]

Unfortunately we aren't trees

[@SuperVlerik]

Adam I'd love to hear you talk about the other half of climate change drivers: the Small Water Cycle. It' gets very little attention, partly because it's harder to model. But it's very accessible for almost everybody to productively, even joyfully, contribute to its repair and benefit from the improvements it brings.

[@misearcher2487]

Good to hear this but a question - what % of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic?

[@daNorse]

The content of CO2 in the atomosphere is 400/1000,000 = 0,04% at the moment. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is 3% of the total CO2. Accoring to the IPCC and NASA man-made is 400/1000,000 x 3% = 0,0012%. So even if it's practically zero, still, according to the Alarmist ortodocsy, this is causing 100% of ALL the climate variations/global warming since the 1970, before any significant human CO2 emissions it was all natural. But you will never hear any of this FACTS in the mainstream media, and you may ask why?

[@ImproveYourMagic]

It only took a world population of 770 million humans at the start of the 1760” Industrial Revolution to begin altering the chemical structure of the atmosphere and oceans. Then I n April of 1912 Co2 breached 300 ppm. Prior to that CO2 levels had wavered between 170 ppm and 280 ppm for the previous 800,000 years Today CO2 is 420 ppm, which has not occurred in over 3 million years. Thank you for showing interest in climate change and the rapid rise to 2.5°C in the 2050s.

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@daNorseYou're spouting nonsense you are copying from a know-nothing site. In reality, about a third, not 3%, of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.

[@oleonard7319]

What's happening right now is instead of using alternative energy to replace fossil fuels. We are finding new and inventive ways to waste electricity. So we are at the same time increasing alternative energy while burning more fossil fuels

[@ericjohnson6665]

Decent video, although it didn't point out that CO2 normally has a base level in the atmosphere without help from fossil fuels, which is okay. The goal being that photosynthesis keeps up with CO2 emitted, from breathing for example. Yes, planting trees was mentioned, but it's more complicated than that. Regenerative agriculture is important, biodiversity is as well. Retraining farmers how to grow crops without relying on plowing the fields, so as to retain the mycelium network is a part of it. Stopping the Amazon Rainforest from being destroyed is a part of it. Kelp and other seaweed farms for absorbing CO2 in the ocean is as well. Then again, if various patents for zero-point energy were declassified, making them available for use now, we could get to energy independence from fossil fuels much faster.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Stable Emissions Concentration Gang 🙌 anyone else repping the brand Keep heating but slower than are used to

[@mablebeel1619]

This is seriously good. Thank you!

[@Andy-wn6wm]

Can the oceans and land reach saturation point ? In terms of CO2

[@ClimateAdam]

good question! the hotter the oceans get, the lower the fraction of our CO2 they can absorb. as for land (and plants in particular!), if we create conditions where certain ecosystems collapse, that will def affect how much CO2 they can absorb.

[@Andy-wn6wm]

@@ClimateAdam 👍

[@user-yq2wk6yg8s]

Amazing presentation. And great collection of tees. PhD huh? Just shows the deeper you go, the more bogged down you get. But life is for learning, so keep on finding new questions please!

[@sapientisessevolo4364]

For the aerosol masking effect, based on the shipling industry and how it heats up short term, couldn't we balance it out by painting roofs white? Sort of an artificial glacier in cities and towns in terms of cooling the world? And save money on heating On a side note, i think i found out why politicians aren't doing enough (this is mostly a joke), lead poisoning from lead pipes apparently takes like 60 years to have real effects. And politicians are usually rather old. Coincidence? I think not!

[@specialingu]

Lead from leaded petrol is more likely...

[@sapientisessevolo4364]

@@specialingu maybe, but the point is lead poisoning affecting the minds of politicians

[@denisdaly1708]

Love the tee shirt

[@dereknewbury163]

Great stuff, Adam. Thank you

[@michaelbindner9883]

It's not carbon, it's heat traps in coastal cities. Until we cover the roads and parking lots with grass, carbon control will not help.

[@mathieucaron4957]

But you know we won't stop, it's time to be serious and to accept reality even we hate it.

[@HeLpLOstGOdAny1]

China increased emissions whilst UK's have fallen in 9 of the past 10 years .. .. Emissions in Mexico continuously increased since 1990.

[@DAna-yc7ym]

That's definitely a misunderstanding of the situation and human psychology.

[@daNorse]

Bravo! Finally someone realizing that there is something called reality! :) I think it's spreading, more and more people starting to think for themselves, and not relying on the MSM propaganda.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Yes, that is very true but to be honest, I just went shopping in the cheap "Action" shop here and it's all Chinese stuff. So they emit for us. If I buy some cheap sidekick scooter (China) in aluminium, then I know, the reason it's so cheap, is not "higher efficiency" but usage of coal. Aluminium production demands huge amounts of energy, so much, I don't think it's even possible with solar.@@HeLpLOstGOdAny1

[@Gilli-brand]

A solar boson collides with a Carbon Dioxide (44gmw) molecule in the long path (270 k) atmospheric, circumference ring. Displacing an O8 atom and activating an Up Quark- Down Quark shift in the remaining , unstable, CO 6-8 , 12/16 -(28gmw) molecule, transferring a neutron /electron pair from the O8 and adding it to the C6 to form a stable , balanced N2 (28gmw) 2N7 molecule. The UV emission(235) being half the original double electron IR (470) emission.

[@andrewshotathompson5116]

one issue is the amount of we'd need to emit creating enough renewable infrastructure, but that's all the more reason to do it sooner rather than later

[@Onequietvoice]

When we get to the point where we are holding CO2 levels steady this would be a good discusssion. First we need to reduce the CO2 emissions. We need to be committed both to reduction on a national level and on a personal level. That means YOU! Almost everyone in the worst emitting countries could cut their emissions by 5% with no impact on lifestyle. Many could do 10%. The time to start doing this was 10 years ago but starting as soon as you finish reading this would also be good. Sit down with your family and list where your current emissions are coming from - then figure out what you can painlesssly reduce. Make it a challenge, even a game, You do not need to do any complex caculations. Keep it simple (and cheap). If you make 20 car journies per week could you cut one? Or double up? Or car pool? If your drive is on open roads then cut the speed by 5%. If you city drive then turn off the ignition at lights and do not accelerate hard. When you get used to these new habits they actually make driving easier, more relaxing plus you save money on fuel. Car use is easy to quantify but many people already have their backs to the wall with power usage in the home. Do what you can. If you have no room for manouevre there, then plant some trees, grow your own vegetables. Turn off your TV, computer or game console and go for a walk! ( YES, I said walk, terrifying isn't it?). Avoid products where there are excessive emissions in the production process. Like greenhouse tomatoes. The trick is just to keep it top of mind - you will find ways. Good Luck.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

If only we had responsible adults in command, then we could say that we chose to do "not so much". Next, together with that comes the duty to help those who are hit by climate change. It would still be an unpleasant situation but if we can survive on Mars "soon" we survive on a hotter earth. The word is of course "survive" and much less"enjoy life". I don't know if we collectively made this choice. There was hardly an alternative .Only with COVID became it clear that people don't always need to be physically present at work. I even wonder if today it's not possible that qualified people give orders to less qualified but nearby living people with monitoring via bodycam.

[@volta2aire]

*There is a reason why we continue to burn more and more fossil fuels:* "Falling EROI due to depletion of high-quality fossil fuel resources also poses a difficult challenge for industrial economies, and could potentially lead to declining economic output and challenge the concept ... of perpetual economic growth."-Energy return on investment. (2023, August 24). In Wikipedia. So, constrained growth means that to build out green infrastructure (and also rebuild it) we will have to find a way to make things with *low-entropy non-emitting energy sources that do not make demands on materials that are hard to recycle.* The scale of energy extracted from fossils is very large. There is no alternative source except nuclear power.

[@nicholaspalmer2220]

Some forget that the natural sinks absorb about 50% of our fossil fuel emissions. This makes it seem as if all we have to do is cut our emissions in half rather than to 'net zero' - which sound a lot easier - but this is oversimplifying. Natural sources would 'take up the slack' because the already warming oceans would continue to 'outgas' CO2 they had already absorbed before. Not generally appreciated is that the colder liquid water gets, the more CO2 it can absorb

[@ClimateAdam]

to be clear natural sinks are not included in the accounting for net zero. net zero refers to the total flux due to human activities.

[@nicholaspalmer2220]

@@ClimateAdam That has confused me. It seems to follow that if, as at present, about half of our emissions are still being absorbed by natural sinks, then if we cut our emissions in half, and those natural sinks were still there, that we would not be adding any further excess GHGs to the atmosphere. This might be similar to the 'net zero' target, yet a lot easier to achieve. I realise that it is unlikely to be a '1 for 1' cancelling out of net CO2 etc...

[@Angelina-xj5zd]

We'll only stop poluting when we are dead. We're going off the climate cliff like Thelma and Louise.

[@ilfark2]

odd... a comment i posted yesterday is gone; it had a link to one of the papers you find if you go to the carbon brief link and keep digging down until you find the paper that i think describes what the models that are the basis for the idea that the earth will certainly draw down CO2 once emissions stop, but i'm a little unclear on what they are basing the sinks on... e.g., it seems they account for phytoplankton but from when? they ref papers from the 1980s all the way to 2000s, with quite a few in the 1990s... so, e.g., are they basing it on how phytoplanton existed/operated/absorbed CO2 back then or did they account for warming waters in some cases killing many of them off? How much paleo data did they use? be nice to see a video on this since some of the papers that seem to lay this out are pay blocked (again starting from links provided here for Carbon Brief and then following them down...) in short, as others in the comments have asked, how did they account for the "behavior" of global carbon sinks changing as the drawn down occurs

[@Omni0404]

You post a link and are surprised your comment was automatically removed? You must be new to KZbin 😂

[@dislikepineapples]

Usually you can only paste KZbin links. Using DOIs in the non-link version might be a way

[@zachh1000]

Right so I've seen a lot of hate and a big push for stopping using fossil fuels over your channel, which makes sense. But the question you continuously fail to answer is: how? Who needs funding and where are the companies designing the drop-in replacements for things such as shipping vessels and airplanes, an affordable solution to replacing cheap transport (I'm talking $1000 here, not $10000) in the form of non-fossil-fuel powered cars? Stationary electricity is almost solved, but we have yet to solve mobile solutions in an affordable way. Batteries come with their own environmental impacts, so please make a video describing who needs funding where in order to actually make progress, instead of just crying at fossil fuel companies? We live in a capitalist society, and it's time we should start acting like it. We need to make it so hard to not choose the green option that the fossil fuel companies will just fall into obscurity. Solve the capitalistic problem with capitalism.

[@texanplayer7651]

"We need to make it so hard to not choose the green option that the fossil fuel companies will just fall into obscurity" Already happening. Just wait a little decade and you'll see.

[@MattiasWikstrom]

For some reason, I have never seen this explained before. It is really important information. Now for some more general feedback: I can only speak for myself, but I am here for the information and not because I am looking for entertainment. I would not mind if you and other KZbinrs who create similar videos were to cut down on the jokes a bit. (Compare: I follow the news from the war in Ukraine on a daily basis and the commentators will always simply try to explain things in a straight way. Jokes can occur but are not very common and are done in a way that avoids distracting from the seriousness of the subject.)

[@daNorse]

Here you have some joke-free important information: The content of CO2 in the atomosphere is 400/1000,000 = 0,04% at the moment. Accoring to the IPCC and NASA man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is 3% of the total CO2. This gives this simple calculation: Man-made CO2 is 400/1000,000 x 3% = 0,0012%. So even if it's practically zero, still, according to the Alarmist ortodocsy, this is causing 100% of ALL the climate variations/global warming since the 1970s. Before any significant human CO2 emissions it was all natural. The Medieval Warm period (1000 years ago) was a LOT warmer than today and humanity was prospering. But you will never hear any of these FACTS in the mainstream media, and you may ask why?

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

From the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University web site (2003). Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University The Earth Institute at Columbia University Open quote. Abrupt Climate Change Around 15,000 years ago, the Earth started warming abruptly after ~ 100,000 years of an "ice age"; this is known as a glacial termination. The large ice sheets, which covered significant parts of North America and Europe, began melting as a result. A climatic optimum known as the "Bölling-Allerød" was reached shortly thereafter, around 14,700 before present. However, starting at about 12,800 BP, the Earth returned very quickly into near glacial conditions (i.e. cold, dry and windy), and stayed there for about 1,200 years: this is known as the Younger Dryas (YD), since it is the most recent interval where a plant characteristic of cold climates, Dryas Octopetala, was found in Scandinavia. The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the ANNUAL-MEAN TEMPERATURE INCREASED BY AS MUCH AS 10°C IN 10 YEARS (emphasis added). Close quote. I wonder how humans dumping CO2 caused such a rapid climate change 11,600 years ago. Maybe humans are so powerful they found a way to send our CO2 back through time into the past since they are claiming that the only reason that the climate changes is because humans cause the change. Perhaps you can explain how humans burning fossil fuels caused those two sudden warming events thousands of years ago.

[@bozoldier]

Your overlay is misleading. Some people will think that if we do gradual transition we'll stabilize a 1.5 while if we just actually stop we'll stabilize at 1.7. Why no puting the same numbers?

[@ClimateAdam]

where we'd end up would completely depend on how fast that transition was (as well as how lucky we are with how sensitive the climate is to CO2). the numbers weren't in any way provided as predictions

[@yasi4877]

It was +2C for 4000 years from 4000 to 8000 years ago. The permafrost would have given up all its methane and other secrets by then however we are still digging up the perfectly preserved bodies of Pleistocene animals. So clearly +2C isn't going to cause chaos!

[@paulburick1506]

Over -development is creating huge heat islands in the American Southwest. Such as Phoenix AZ. With 32 days of greater than 110 farhenheit this summer,we need to address this. Construction continues unabated. his process

[@whatever133701]

Nov. 22, 2009 - In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. Garrett treats civilization like a “heat engine” that “consumes energy and does ‘work’ in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,” he says. “If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless,” he adds. “It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources.”

[@Timlagor]

Mostly they talk about "net zero" not stop emitting altogether. That "net" counts *all* carbon sinks. It's pure fantasy to imagine politicians and corporations won't count all those sinks -they are far more likely to count them multiple times over! Even if we stopped all emissions it's not at all certain that the natural carbon sinks are still viable.

[@oleonard7319]

The only part of net zero. That is actually net zero is amount most carbon, capture projects will net remove

[@yogawithrosie3805]

​@@oleonard7319I see you edited your comment. Did it make any sense before you did so?

[@pulsar22]

Oven analogy? Does not equate!!! While the oven's dial controls the amount of gas being burned (or electricity wattage pumped in), GHG is just more like a blanket than an oven's dial. And it is a very thin blanket at that, since out of 342w/m2 from the sun, the blanket only slows down exit of that by 2 to 3 watts/m2. Or just 0.9% of the average incoming insolation. The CO2 AGW hypothesis in fact requires water vapor feedback to work. Without water vapor, the current warming is too hot for CO2 to be the sole factor. Oven analogy is more akin to solar insolation than GHG back radiation.

[@oleonard7319]

Trees wont solve the problem unless you are growing them chopping them down then sinking them into an oxygen depleted environment. Then grow new trees. Growing trees is not really extracting carbon from the carbon cycle.

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

We don't have to take down the whole carbon cycle, we have to reduce CO2 quantities, which plants can do if they live long enough and are of species which are efficient at CO2 absorption. Plants have once actually caused a mass-extinction by overcooling the planet:

[@oleonard7319]

@@Wind-oh-Wishp yeah you have no idea what you are talking about

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

@@oleonard7319 I have a biology bsc, I do know what I am talking about down to a subatomic level.

[@oleonard7319]

@@Wind-oh-Wishp sure you are

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@oleonard7319Carboniferous period was precariously low carbon bc trees sequestered it all. They were millions of years more advanced than their predators (herbivores) Our main source of coal are those dead forests.

[@ViC87CaN]

I believe that the cause of this issue is that people confuse "climate change" with "global warming".

[@fromnorway643]

"Global warming" is less confusing that "Climate change" since it tells us in which _direction_ the climate is changing.

[@shaunaburton7136]

Good info

[@gregcromack3864]

So you don't believe that we have hit such tipping points as ongoing methane release from the permafrost or that the oceans and forests are about to reach saturation?

[@mattcarlson6901]

I have a question . What was the atmospheric CO2 level 65 million years ago , what was the cause of the CO2 drop to 180 ppm ?

[@oleonard7319]

Not relevant to now.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Logical explanation is formation of Himalayas. The fresh rock from under the surface when it is exposed to air, it absorbs CO2

[@mattcarlson6901]

@@DrSmooth2000 No doubt a contributing factor . The loss of our equatorial sea due to plate tectonics is most likely the primary reason .

[@mrfuzz987]

Meshtop Adam.

[@heww3960]

At the end you finally mention feedback loops. How would it stabilize if it has or will triggered enough feedback loops?

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

It won't stabilise immediately, it will slowly diminish out to a barely measurable degree. It can trigger feedback loops so heavily that the warming becomes completely unstoppable, but as for now we probably did not pass the point of no return or even if we did, what we should do is still the same: reduce consumption, reforestrate and try to reduce it as much as possible. I can explain it too, but it would be better if you looked it up online you can find what self-perpetuating warming trends and what cooling trends exist. It will take 1-2 hour of reading.

[@heww3960]

​@@Wind-oh-Wishp Why should we reduce as much as possible if the feedbacks loops have take over? Why cause suffering for no reason? Do not make any sense? Then we should continue like we do and focus on geoengineering like sai, ccs etc.

[@ClimateAdam]

your question suggests that such feedbacks would be self-sustaining even after we started warming, which (say for methane permafrost) is not necessarily the case. I hope to make a video on the methane feedbacks in the not too distant future.

[@heww3960]

@@ClimateAdam Methane is not the only issue, and it will probably not come all at once, but releasad over time. The extra warming from the methane could still cause other feedbacks, like the ocean instead of absorbing co2, it start to releasing co2, and then we have more and more wildfires, that releasing co2, and if we get to the point where we have no wildfires because of no trees left, then we have other problems. All of this will probably cause a collapse of the society. But im pretty sure technology will fix all of this, like sai, marine clouding, ccs, artificiell environments, water desalination plants that make sea water into drinking water etc. So we have nothing to worry about really. But if technology would not be there, then we are screwed. Reducing co2 emissions is not the answer, technology is.

[@Wind-oh-Wishp]

@@heww3960 Geoengineering is not a thing. And reducing pollution does not cause suffering, but prevents more of it. And as I told you, we don't know yet if they are unstoppable at this point in time, but if we do not reduce pollution, then we will inevitably reach the point of no return.

[@petewright4640]

If greenhouse gas emissions went to zero overnight then temps would pretty much stop rising. That's because although oceans take a long time to fully reflect atmospheric warming they, and other sinks, would be absorbing atmospheric CO2, reducing it's concentration and so reducing the forcing. According to latest science (and it seems Adam doesn't know this) these effects will balance out. Temperatures would not fall though for centuries. Caveat - runaway methane emissions from biogenic sources may take over! Note, sea levels will continue to rise for millennium even if temps remain stable. Oops, just watched the next bit and Adam makes this exact point.

[@ImproveYourMagic]

Aerosol masking effect.

[@danwilliams6003]

Nothing will change until extinction reduces the population by 80% + however by then the remaining Western population would be unable to make a profit increase each year, therefore adaptations to warmer climate is required - I suggest using the burnt wood charcoal from AUS,USA and Amazon burying it in World Heritage sites to remove carbon. We could also shred livestock and spread this over forests to boost green growth.

[@petewright4640]

Adam(s) didn't mention the mystery of the accelerating atmospheric methane level which may indicate that we have already triggered a dangerous positive feedback.

[@oleonard7319]

It's not a mystery it's coming out of the Russian steppe as the permafrost thaws and the ocean's deepsea deposits are being released as the ocean warms

[@MrWolfe-bx5sh]

We need more co2. Too much is trapped.

[@CraigBVideos]

Question: Just how low do you want our CO2 levels to go? Right now we are at 440PPM. I am told that at 200PPM plants can not survive. Given that our current levels are already at a low compared to past levels (at one time we were at a high of 8,000PPM) are we not risking a carbon collapse and screwing up life on our planet?

[@fromnorway643]

Whoever told you that plants can't survive 200 ppm of CO₂ is lying. The _average_ CO₂ concentration over the last 800,000 years was 220-230 ppm and dropped to 180 ppm during the coldest ice ages. The preindustrial level was 280 ppm and we are now at 420 ppm, so I wouldn't say there is an _immediate_ danger of plants dying off from lack of CO₂.

[@fromnorway643]

@@Clyde-2055 "Preindustrial" in this context means just before the industrial revolution about 200 years ago. It's impossible to know the CO₂ concentration with high precision millions of years ago, but geological clues indicate a value of roughly 1000 ppm at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago and even higher further back in time. Most of the Phanerozoic eon (last 540 million years) also had higher global temperature than in the Holocene epoch after the last ice age, pretty much as expected with all that CO₂. Some climate deniers use as a counter argument that the CO₂ level was as high as 7000 ppm in the Cambrian period 500 million years ago, but they conveniently forget two crucial factors: *1.* The temperature at that time was in fact quite high according to most estimates (~10°C higher than in the modern era?) although both temperature and CO₂ was highly uncertain that long ago. *2.* The energy output of the Sun was 4-5 % lower than now, meaning that it took about 7 times more CO₂ just to offset the cooling impact of that.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@fromnorway643150ppm is my understanding of plant stress level with 50ppm being stasis and death zone

[@michaelbindner9883]

Carbon does not heat the asphalt which heats the air and Gulf Stream.

[@ChimpJacobman]

I didn't understand your argument for why aerosol masking isn't something to worry about. Because the models already consider it? The same modelers who factor in the aerosol masking are the ones saying losing that masking will result in a huge temp spike. Then you argue that losing aerosol masking will be counteracted by eliminating other emissions. The problem with that assumption is that aerosols stay in the troposphere for a few days on average before falling back to earth. Methane is removed from the atmosphere via interaction with hydroxyl radicals and has a half life of about 10 years; it is 85x more powerful than CO2 for its 1st 20 years in the atmosphere, and 25x more powerful over 100 years. So, assume we stop emitting everything today, aerosol masking is gone within a week, but elevated methane and CO2 would persist for a longer period of time. So, we'd see a big temperature spike while we wait for GHG decreases to catch up, right?

[@EyeMenu]

Do the Sink example again , set it so that there is 420 ounces in the sink. then adjust the inflow so it is in balance with the out flow so that 420 ounces stays suspended in the sink bowl while the water is running. Thats what we have on earth with Co2 . next drop .000000000001 parts of red dye into the water. This will represent Carbon 14. The only way to dilute the Carbon 14 by 3/4th is to also remove 3/4th of the carbon 12 down the drain from the inflow.

[@johncoviello8570]

What about positive feedback loops that are triggered by rising temperatures? We will reach a point where the feedback loops are in control of warming by releasing greenhouse gasses from natural sources like permafrost, causing additional warming.

[@ClimateAdam]

positive feedbacks are definitely important contributors that can add to warming, but it's important to differentiate between them and tipping points - where they would self reinforce and be unstoppable drivers of temperature rise. many such feedbacks (like permafrost methane which I mention towards the end of this vid) are likely to be limited by limiting the initial temperature rise. I'm hoping to do a video on methane feedbacks, which goes into much more depth on this!

[@johncoviello8570]

@@ClimateAdamThank you!