Which Greenhouse Gas is the Worst?

The greenhouse effect keeps life on our planet going, but if it gets too hot that ain't so good. In this video, we investigate the most common greenhouse gases, their global warming potentials (GWPs), and discuss concerns related to their emissions.
Support the Channel on Patreon - / thatchemist
Join the Community Discord! - / discord
Team
Producer - That Chemist (Joey)

[@SosirisTseng]

Hydrogen is also a green house gas (GWP ~ 11).

[@delphicdescant]

Yeah but wouldn't its atmospheric "lifetime" be really short? It's pretty good at escaping the atmosphere.

[@SosirisTseng]

@@delphicdescant Yes, hydrogen stays less than 3 years in the atmosphere. But it still makes methane lasts longer and thus the GWP.

[@lbochtler]

Watervapor is as well. Oxygen and nitrogen too

[@thethingthatkeepsyougoing1191]

Not as bad as of a GHg because it reacts with oxygen

[@jessicaandtrains7768]

​@@SosirisTseng Methane breaks down in the atmosphere relatively quickly.

[@greatgodoffire4139]

No carbon tetrachloride, Tom will be disappointed.

[@DrRyanHooker]

I like how in the US you can still just buy a holy hand grenade full of that stuff at pawn shops. Turn your house fire into a federal Superfund site in two seconds flat!

[@phizc]

​@@alexanderkomeijithat's carbon tetrafluoride, not chloride.

[@antares8826]

CCl4 is also not very environmentally friendly

[@ToxicMrSmith]

​@@phizcno it's definitely tetrachloride

[@JetFuelSE]

@@ToxicMrSmith Fluorocarbons tend to also not be very nice.

[@LemurG]

HFO-1234yf sounds like a pretty decent password if you ask me

[@lbochtler]

Its going to be found to produce cancer in nematodes and thus also be banned once again.

[@emrilbennett8704]

I feel like a lot of chemicals would make good passwords Maybe that should be its own tier list

[@pyromen321]

Please don’t post my password on the internet

[@emrilbennett8704]

@@pyromen321 will not do

[@rexperverziff]

⁠@@pyromen321by confirming that is your password, now I know your password.

[@gulingo6903]

"You might be familiar with Nitrous Oxide" 🎈

[@That_Chemist]

Vitamin B12 would like to know your location

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

​@@That_Chemist Check their local dentists office

[@FU-bz3jb]

In the energy drinks that came with the balloons

[@Sniperboy5551]

@That_Chemist Based pharmacological comment.

[@archuserbytheway]

I am very familiar with nitrous oxide

[@RCM442]

Greenhouse gas lore

[@pierreproudhon9008]

Greenhouse gas lore

[@ggyggg2272]

​@@pierreproudhon9008why the hell are you repeating that

[@Moritz___]

Greenhouse gas lore

[@prenestina]

​@@Moritz___ why the hell are you repeating that

[@slompish]

greenhouse gas lore

[@tfrowlett8752]

This is why fridge mechanics like me reclaim harmful refrigerants like R-22 and R-134a instead of releasing them, and why we switched to less harmful refrigerants like R-600a

[@jhoughjr1]

That are way way less effective and efficient

[@lbochtler]

​@@jhoughjr1 and thus negating the effect that changing the refrigerent type.

[@rzpogi]

Where I live, it is part of the Philippine clean air act not to release any refrigerant into the air. Also, as to discourage maintaining systems with harmful refrigerants, they're more expensive per kg than environmentally friendly refrigerants. However, a lot of cars here though still use R134A, and EUDM such as BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, and VW are the only ones using R1234yf.

[@themonkeyspaw7359]

@@jhoughjr1 r-600 (Propane) is more efficient, its just an explosion hazard. Dont talk out of your ass.

[@ThunderClawShocktrix]

@@jhoughjr1 and flammable so less safe

[@funtechu]

One of the biggest reasons that CFC concentration decline has stagnated is that China continues to use R-12 even after the "global" ban.

[@pocpic]

It was banned in China , but corrupt officials didn't enforce it, because that would've meant not hitting targets and losing out on favors with the CCP. They even enforced other environmental protection regulations properly, but a paid a "special lab" to fake reports. Similar thing is going on in the US where methane leaks aren't reported by fossil fuel companies and the EPA has no power to investigate.

[@0521Gamer]

Can confirm we get R12 at my work from a Chinese supplier for putting into classic car AC systems

[@AlexanderBurgers]

@@0521Gamer is it really R-12 or is it HC-12A?

[@bartroberts1514]

China allows "New Old Stock" freon, though it has been systematically cracking down on pollutants that make smog worse internally, and the penalties for getting caught are .. more severe than in the West. However, yes, you can get it and it's even in some places legal for some uses by the selfish eyerolling sort who'd rather fight than switch, and don't mind dumping pollution into the air as much as they mind being moralized at about it.

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

Great video! Shame it had to be over such a depressing topic... Also, NF3 looks like it shouldn't be as stable as it is. Fluorine's just that good at hold onto electrons.

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

My phone cuts it off at "Also, NF3 looks like it shouldn't..." and I agree

[@rileyh4169]

Freon was only banned because there were new and economically viable replacements. None of the chemical listed for use in the tech sector will be banned anytime soon unfortunately.

[@Talon19]

Refrigerants are getting banned all the time.

[@lbochtler]

SF6 is now banned in europe. There is no replacement avalible. The EU dose not care about that however. If someone says to use propane or "green SF6" as sold by ABB. Well there are many apllications that can not be switched due to the physical properties being essential for operation. Example beings ultra stable high voltage DC powersupplies and test gear. The dielectric constant is part of its regulator circuit, so changing the gas would change the regulator, usually to the worse. The way SF6 quenches is also nearly unique to it. Basically its not replacable but buorocrats dont care.

[@strategicbacon7349]

@@lbochtler In Sweden, SF6 is still being used as an isolator and fire suppressant at different power stations. Even after the ban new stations pop up with SF6 warning signs. I suppose it's just too valuable and effective to change out easily.

[@placeholdername0000]

​@@lbochtler A lot of bans have the option for exemptions. Is this the case here?

[@lbochtler]

@@placeholdername0000 none that i have found, other then if its in the system already it can stay there until servicing. Though i have not yet had the time to fully review the entire far too long legal nonsense the EU wrote about it.

[@99jdave99]

Hearing about these ridiculously potent greenhouse gases, it makes me wonder: what's the worst possible synthetic greenhouse gas possible? And then further, what would be the worst as a gas that could be produced at cheaply at scale (aka, not some cursed amalgamation that lasts for seconds and doesn't use a bunch of expensive elements; it very much wouldn't surprise me if the worst one without these considerations wouldn't last long at all and/or have some ridiculous production process to accommodate weird or extremely massive molecules (though I'm not sure if a gas' greenhouse potency has any meaningful relationship to molecule size)).

[@pocpic]

Sulfur hexafluoride is probably the worst possible. The reason is that larger molecules (or chlorinated ones) have shorter atmospheric lifetimes as they're more susceptible to photochemical reactions and/or oxidation. Meanwhile, sulfur hexafluoride is non-reactive and very stable.

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

Bro is a supervillain 😭

[@misham6547]

​@@Kyle-gw6qpor wants to teraform Mars

[@akramkimou23]

Wasnt expecting minecraft to show up in a "That Chemist" video

[@That_Chemist]

You haven’t watched enough tierlists then :P

[@akramkimou23]

@@That_Chemist i guess ur right, ive watched some but not all of them so i probably didnt see it anywhere except in this video

[@SelinicaHarbinger]

I still ("fondly") remember finding a brand new old stock can of freon-12 freeze spray for electronics from the 80's. That was a fun surprise to try and figure out how to dispose of properly

[@bartroberts1514]

1. We don't have 100 years before global warming becomes too severe to adapt to. 2. For rising emission curves, only the 1 year GWP matters. Which is all the emissions. 3. CO2 and H20 are non-saturating because of shouldering (phase change that shifts absorption spectra). 4. CO2 is non-condensing in atmosphere, so remains above the dew point of water vapor. 5. CO2 and H20 do not devolve into other substances in atmosphere, like CH4, NOx, SOx, CO, ozone, etc. 6. CO2 is the demonstrated thermostat of climate variation in positive feedback mechanisms.

[@csmrfx]

There is no "global warming"? Where is your proof there is global warming? There is no such proof, because it is a _weak_ hypothesis.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@csmrfx Proof? You'd have to have been under a rock since 1824 to have missed the proof. Also, global warming is not a hypothesis, but an inference confirmed by empirical induction from observation with minimal assumption, exception or omission. 200 years ago, Fourier reasoned the source of climate variance cannot be from the sun, or by any observed source in space (and with satellites, we've observed quite a bit, now), nor from beneath the surface of the Earth and seas, so must be in the atmosphere. How is that 'weak'? In 1856, Eunice Foote proved the global warming potential of CO2, at that time ~280 ppmv in the atmosphere. Within a decade, Tyndall confirmed the properties of CO2 made it the thermostat of what later was called the Greenhouse Effect. Their experiments have been reproduced countless times, and remain strong and unrefuted.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@csmrfx Following Fourier, Foote, Tyndall came Arrhenius who calculated climate sensitivity to the CO2 thermostat to be ~3 degrees C per doubling of CO2 in 1895. Hogbom by 1905 calculated how much coal was contributing to CO2 levels. Callendar collated prior climate sensitivity knowledge and demonstrated correlation in actual climate to CO2 rise, by 1938, showing the ~10% increase from 280 ppmv to that date matched Arrhenius' projections. Plass and Lamb showed CO2 rise accelerating, and that climate change is a result of forcings like CO2 concentration change, by the mid 1950's. Revelle, Craig, Keeling, Smagorinsky and Broeckner by 1965 reported on the dangers of continued fossil emissions to the president of the US. Exxon's Richard Black confirmed this in 1968, in a report the company suppressed. Holdren and Schneider by 1972 reversed their earlier resistance to the idea of global warming when it was shown that the CO2 forcing was four times stronger than the cooling effects of fossil aerosols. As of now, the mountain of evidence is so huge it smacks you in the face like a Beryl demolishing buildings in its path.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@csmrfx Proof? You'd have to have been under a rock since 1824 to have missed the proof. Also, global warming is not a hypothesis, but an inference confirmed by empirical induction from observation with minimal assumption, exception or omission. Their experiments have been reproduced countless times, and remain strong and unrefuted.

[@csmrfx]

@@bartroberts1514 Your arguments fundamental problem is confusing effect for cause. So you mistake the cause for effect, as your model does not contain the astronomy and physics, reducing a medium sized planet to 2 variable model, only CO2 and temp. Oceans are the key to understanding where (most) of CO2 comes from. Just like #MilankovitchCycles are the key to understanding the orbital and solar effects that dictate the climate cycles (what #climatealarmists call "global warming"), and key to understanding why this contemporary climate is not "new" but the same cycles over again. With your incorrect model of "CO2-->temp" from #popsci and #greenwashmedia, what smacks You in the face is the fact that "atmospheric CO2 levels follow the ocean temperature". Touché! On 1965 and 1972, its just guesses. In their era, there was not enough systemic measurements. Note: fossil fuels may bring other problems, such as acid rain from sulfur. But CO2 is the least of our problems, as it dissolves into oceans. Not that That Chemist gets carbonic acid either, it seems! What a plile of beginner/pedestrian level pseudoarguments.

[@lsswappedcessna]

It really is a shame that R-12 is such a bad greenhouse gas, as it's an amazing refrigerant. Also, when was R-134a banned? You can go to your local auto parts store and buy a good sized can of it for like $40.

[@AlexanderBurgers]

it is banned in Europe and Canada at least, has been for near a decade too. Existing installs can only be refilled with reclaimed refrigerant. Shipments in get confiscated and destroyed by customs, and that even makes the news sometimes, as if it's some kind of large drugs bust. x_x

[@FlameDarkfire]

It’s probably banned going forward with any new model car but yes, you will still be able to buy R134 a for older vehicles for a while just like it was with R12

[@Auxilor]

would be nice to see some syntheses on this channel!

[@Sniperboy5551]

He could easily make nitrous oxide, it’s a fairly simple (and legal) process.

[@qcard76]

Lmfao the United Nations tag on this video

[@Microtonal_Cats]

KZbin adds that with any video on this topic. They do similar with other topics.

[@ScienceFan123]

Why cant we just eat the greenhouse gases

[@99jdave99]

This person is a plant

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

Okay autotroph

[@flextape467]

Let him cook

[@Mulmgott]

Chemoautotroph detected, opinion rejected. Rise up up heterotrophs!

[@csmrfx]

Because the water vapor that is the bulk of the radiative effects in lowest atmosphere levels is not food.

[@coolhandab5296]

Um, citation needed for why SF6 allegedly contributes to global warming. It is much, much heavier than air and there’s no way for it to rise to the upper atmosphere. It’s main use is in very high voltage equipment, for which there is no substitute.

[@emilsberzins3155]

I work in the MV industry and yes, there is no gas(currently) better than SF6, but there are alternatives, like dry air, vacuum, novac, Airplus and others. As to tackle the air density and SF6 density. Doesn’t SF6 linger near the ground? For the most part, yes. But again that’s pretty much irrelevant to its potency as a greenhouse gas. Whether it’s down near the ground or high in the air, it can absorb the infrared radiation and transfer that energy to other molecules by colliding with them. If anything, lingering near the ground makes energy transfer by collision more likely than re-emission by photon.

[@iampotates]

So if i release enough of this it'll always be whiteboy summer? Bet.

[@margodphd]

It'll be always redboy summer, all year round.

[@0521Gamer]

Gotta start R12 maxing

[@landrec2]

Excellent video as always.

[@That_Chemist]

thank you!

[@joshuahere5097]

Greenhouse gases when redhome solids enter the room

[@adjacent_dollar]

Redhome solids when bluebuilding liquids walk in

[@bulbman256]

Bluebuilding liquids when Yellowstructure plasma enters the room

[@adjacent_dollar]

yellowstructure plasma when purpleshed bose-einstein condensate enters the room

[@bueb8674]

Purpleshed bose-einstein condensate when Orangedwelling quark-gluon plasma enters the room

[@bagelgeuse5736]

Orangedwelling quark-gluon plasma when Whitearchitecture supercritical-fluids enter the room

[@c.009]

The worst greenhouse gas was from my dad after a dinner of cabbage and beef

[@tomsmith48]

Ironically, while the odorless methane and CO2 components of farts are good GHG, the components you smell (at least any H2S and thiols) are really poorly absorbing in the IR.

[@sv98753]

even i smelled that lol xD

[@alexkrieger2768]

1234yf is great, but it's extremely flammable. It also breaks down the A/C system parts (such as the rubber seals/lines and aluminum-finned components) and leaks out a lot more often compared to R134a. Eventually it'll more than likely have a higher amount in the atmosphere when R134a is eventually phased out, so hopefully 1234yf doesn't have any long lasting effects

[@pokeman747]

Up until very recently the largest source of CFC was ventolin prescriptions from the NHS

[@seneca983]

Really? Even though the UK makes up less than 1% of the world population?

[@abbyfluoroethane]

no way its a me reference

[@lesliemarie5182]

Yo Abby I found this out in the wild 😭😂💀

[@victoria5760]

I've been listening to your videos while I nap through my lunch break every day. Your videos are very calming (and chemistry in university always made me sleepy)

[@lharsay]

6:45 That's why it's so hard to find any habitable planets in other solar sytems.

[@WindyDelcarlo]

How would one go from the IR spectrograph to considering the effect on global warming? CF4 has one very strong IR band that it absorbs, but the other wavenumbers pass straight through it. CO2, conversely, has a wider and higher-enegy absorption band, plus a few other wavelengths that it absorbs from other vibrations. Why is CF4 so much more potent if it's absorbing less of the IR radiation?

[@TheArgentAgent]

I think methane deserves to be in a higher tier. In addition to having an extremely large relative increase in atmospheric concentration since 1850 (+~140%), methane is involved in multiple natural earth system feedbacks including temperature-permafrost thaw feedbacks and temperature-decomposition feedbacks in equatorial/tropical wetlands, all of which have been accelerating to some degree due to climate change. High short-term increases in temperature from methane may make up for the inertia in temperature increases from CO2, potentially extending climate impacts, though if methane levels managed to reach high enough levels short-term the earth's climate may shift into another state altogether, regardless of the methane's eventual dissipation.

[@劉樂山]

In Hsinchu science park (Taiwan), there were tanker trucks filled with NF3 running on the road, these are for semiconductor manufacturers.

[@klocugh12]

N2O and SF6 might have global warming potential, but they also have hilarity potential.

[@jordanfranks8]

I know it's from NIST, but that ozone IR looks like someone messed up the background measurements (T > 1 near 600cm^-1 and "sloped" baseline)

[@lbochtler]

Nist is not infalable

[@joseywales6168]

Love this breakdown, keep up the good work and education

[@That_Chemist]

Thank you!

[@giantdwarfulf]

I work onboard liquified gas tankers and the reliquefaction plants as well as large scale air conditioning units consume large amounts of various freon gases, mostly r-404a, r-407c, r-134a. Luckily those will be prohibited to use in the maritime industry as of 2025 i believe. The future refrigerant will be propylene most likely. I remember on one older vessel we had to add one 50L bottle of r-407c every week to the reliquefaction plant because there was so much leaking out, really a shame tbh.

[@PaulSteMarie]

Waiting for the inevitable shitstorm in the comments...

[@moonshine9552]

Hey, you are doing a really good job. I'm a first year PhD student in organic chemistry and I'm learning a lot from your videos, especially the knowledge you require to work in the lab. I would request you to make videos on compound purification and characterization techniques. For eg why do you use GC, HPLC in organic chemistry etc how do you calculate the reaction yield from NMR, GC.... Since these are the things you will never find on KZbin. :)) Thanks again

[@ebombbomb6718]

Thankfully, my high school had a somewhat dedicated Environmental science teacher. She was once a field agent for the EPA. She taught us about CFC’s and their effect on the atmosphere. Not many people I know have gotten the same education

[@jessicaandtrains7768]

I wonder. With SF6 being so heavy, how can it have much effect on warming? Would it not stay near the ground(and bodies of water) which itself already absorbs most of the heat from solar radiation? I suppose it might act like a blanket?

[@tomsmith48]

I wouldn't have thought SF6 would sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, except when you have a relatively concentrated point source (e.g. a leak from SF6 containing vessel). Plenty of opportunity to mix with the rest of the gases. In a similar way you don't expect say a solute in a lower density solvent than itself to concentrate at the bottom of your flask.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

The pressure differential because of height in the atmosphere is low enough for it to diffuse across a very large volume and not concentrate at the bottom. Of course, if you take a large enough height difference it will be at a higher concentration closer to the ground than firther away.

[@andrefiliks]

Didn't expect carbonated water to be earth's doom

[@johnbraunschweig]

I looked up sulfurhexaflourid- and carbondioxidemissions for Germany. SF6-Emissions are below 300 tons since the 90's. CO2-Emissions declined from 1251000000 tons in 1990 to 650000000 tons last year. Even with it's gigantic potential, SF6 doesn't hold a candle to CO2 in effect.

[@2011vortex]

From a fellow chem major, I enjoy your videos.

[@That_Chemist]

I wish you the best of luck in your studies

[@3er24t4g1]

I am mentally stable, and m can be trusted with a 50 ton train car of tier-F greenhouse gas agents.

[@Protogen_Labs]

Keep up the work! I love watching your tier lists.

[@That_Chemist]

Glad you enjoy them! Thanks :)

[@OldieBugger]

By pre-industrial time you probably mean The Little Ice Age, an unusually cold period in known history. It's quite natural that now we are having warmer temperatures when compared to that.

[@y33t23]

Fluorine when atmospheres exist: I'm gonna end this mans whole career

[@oraz.]

I'm glad they found most of this out decades ago. I don't think we would in the present.

[@disorganizedorg]

9:13 [This topic (ozone depleting chemicals) honestly deserves a video of its own] Agreed!

[@yesnt2415]

Hey I think you should do a video about 4-cmc and 3-cmc since they are very popular In Europe and people don't realize how neurotixic they are 😊

[@nabra97]

I was sure that ozone was a temperature decreaser for some reason (which doesn't mean I thought it was good, they cause a bunch of other problems)

[@justinwizard4776]

How is the data gathered for these reports?

[@Aera223]

Satellite imagery (infrared too), air quality sensors on both ground and weather balloons, and similar processes

[@opetelkaaluemaan]

plants seem to like greenhouses...

[@TheWizardofLimes]

Got a link to that data sheet at 14:00 ?

[@jsalsman]

"Soil management practices" is not very clear as to how it might produce nitrous oxide. Does it mean, for example, that crop rotation causes more or less N2O than otherwise?

[@simpson4237]

Soil management is pretty complex. It's a fight between inorganic nitrogen and organic nitrogen in the soil, cover crops and moisture levels because soil that drys out for a period of time after plowing will release nitrous oxide when rehydrated after a rain, then you have bacteria levels to keep track of because if they're not kept happy they will consume different compounds like ammonia, inorganic nitrogen and break it down to n2o. All the also depends on temperature and oxygen levels in the soil

[@marc-andreservant201]

It's important to note that the 2°C target is just that. Nothing will happen at that specific temperature. 1.95°C of warming would be bad. 2.05°C of warming would be slightly worse but there's no specific "tipping point" where the Earth turns into Venus. It's a spectrum of consequences that get progressively worse with increased warming, not a binary "we're fine" and "we're doomed" proposition. The reason climate models can't accurately predict the temperature rise in the next century is not because we don't know what causes global warming (the fact that greenhouse gas emissions by humans is the primary cause is a proven scientific fact). The issue is that the entire world could draft and sign a treaty banning gasoline engines tomorrow, or we could just say "screw it" and keep increasing our emissions. Computer models can't predict human decisions.

[@jeffbenton6183]

Well, this was neat! Sulfur Hexafloride and those other two have an insanely high warming potential, but I'm not sure that I would have put them in S-tier because their concentrations are so low (on the other hand, maybe the concentrations are higher than I think?)

[@garrenosborne9623]

Simon Clark did a great vid on single biggest thing that could be done right now is the problem of refrigerants as a heating world defaults to mega rise air conditioning. But judging from this the Fluorides involved with AI arms race with the mega data centre & resulting nvida chip demand {& especially chips for ironically solar panels!? & high voltage grid switching} might be a bigger deal of bangs for buck for changing.

[@powerzx]

The worst greenhouse gas is Hydrogen, because it is very light and has only 1 electron. So it is very bad at holding energy. Hydrogen also easily escapes from Earth, so during it's escape it takes some energy with it to the space (evaporating equals cooling effect). The most efficient greenhouse gases are the those with big molecules and with many electrons, because they can capture more energy into those electrons.

[@Exist64]

My favorite video from you so far, thank you very much.

[@dannyboy12244]

No desflurane? Has a GWP score of 2540 which is pretty terrible!

[@BVN-TEXAS]

Sulphur hexa fluoride really doesn’t have a good replacement in large electrical switch gear. When it comes to snubbing a massive arc, SF6 is your man.

[@That_Chemist]

CF3I is one candidate, but I don’t really have the expertise to assess the potential for it

[@rubensandstrom6824]

”Fun” fact about R12 the guy who “invented” hat is the same person who popularized tetra ethyl lead in gasoline

[@overtheeventhorizon124]

So, would releasing 5 gigatonnes of SF6 be enough to make the planet go bye-bye?

[@DemonSliime]

Now here is a question I’ve mever seen answered. Can I make an actual greenhouse using the effects of these gasses?

[@Pootycat8359]

The ability of the greenhouse's transparent glass or plastic roof & walls to trap heat is certainly far, far, greater than any effect CO2 in its atmosphere would have. HOWEVER, many greenhouse operators inject CO2 into the structures, to cause their plants to grow faster & get bigger. Plants thrive on CO2, just as we & other animals live on O2 Several hundred million years ago, when the atmosphere had 3000 ppm of CO2 (7 1/2 times what it is today!), Earth was a lush paradise.

[@erichpoly4434]

I think it's more fun to find a solution. We can make a car's air conditioning system run on CO2. 2. F-gas must decrease statistically. Therefore, the less F-gas there are in the air, the better. Therefore, it must be a technical advantage to remove CO2 / CH4 or other natural gases and liquids to use

[@tonygee5087]

These measures of greenhouse gases are all theorectical and looked at in isolation. I remember from my undergraduate degree that water vapour absorbs most of the photons that all the other greenhouse gases also absorb so you get to a point that adding more gases that theoretically absorb IR doesn't happen because all the photons at their absorbtion wavelengths have already been absorbed by other greenhouse gases. So you really need to overlay all the absorbtion spectra of the different gases with the ground level incident sunlight spectra at absorbtion frequencies and to complete the picture one needs totals of photons and potential IR absorbers. There isn't an infinite number of photons at the IR absorbtion bands of greenhouse gases so you get to a point where adding more greenhouse gases doesn't cause any further absorbtion/remmission because there aren't photons left to absorb at the required wavelenths. It is interesting to note that at various points in time, Earth's temp has been both much hotter than now and also much colder than now but this has happened when CO2 was both very low and also much higher than today. So, if it's possible that the Earth's temp can be very cold while Co2 is very high doesn't suggest CO2 can't be the main driver of global temp and that we really don't understand what is going on? Yes, plotting CO2 against temp does seem to be positively linear for last 3/4 century but it clearly is not correlated at all at a geological time scale?

[@TheEsseboy]

And you think none of the scientists have ever thought of this?

[@seneca983]

"so you get to a point that adding more gases that theoretically absorb IR doesn't happen because all the photons at their absorbtion wavelengths have already been absorbed by other greenhouse gases" It doesn't work like that. The atmosphere isn't one big thin sheet that either just absorbs a photon or doesn't. Adding more greenhouse gases shortens the mean free path of a photon in the atmosphere and thus slows down the escape of heat into space through radiation.

[@fallencobra5197]

I’m kinda confused by the light thing how does that help determine global warming potential what is transmittance? Someone explain please

[@nobody.of.importance]

Takes a little bit of background physics knowledge. Atoms and molecules can only interact with light of certain frequencies, with each "degree of freedom" adding more frequency ranges it can react with. When light of the right frequency comes into interaction range with an electron, the latter can absorb the energy of the former, pushing it up into a higher energy state. This state isn't stable, however, and eventually the electron re-releases that energy as another photon. Because no two atoms can share a quantum state, the more atoms you add to a molecule, the more frequencies it can interact with, with even the connections between them able to exchange energy. Additionally, once this energy is captured, it can become other forms of energy, which can then in turn be turned back to a photon with different energy. With that all understood, think of the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are like the windows in your car. On a hot, sunny day, you have a lot of sunlight streaming in through that window, because it's transparent to visible light, and it gets absorbed into the material as heat. Normally that is re-released as infrared light, but here's the thing: Your windows are opaque to IR. That radiated energy is able to come in, but can't get back out. If you roll the windows down, you allow more of that energy to be released, but if it's rolled all the way up, that heat is trapped in your car while more energy continues to pour in. That's why rolling your window down will help keep your car cool, even when there's very little wind. Hope that makes sense, but I'm a bit scatterbrained so feel free to ask questions.

[@beansnrice321]

What do you think about enhanced rock weathering as a possible way to capture carbon? One method I saw involved scattering ground up basalt into the ocean to help combat ocean acidification, and also enhancing the co2 capacity of the ocean.

[@koolkatkenzie1491]

I'm did research on terrestrial enhanced weathering for my undergrad!!! Even though I've spent so long working on it the life cycle analyses don't work out a lot of the time (energy intensive to grind and transport the material) and heavy metals are a huge environmental concern for spreading that material on land. Basalt is better than the ultramafic rocks that were initially being tested in terms of heavy metal concentrations, but doesn't sequester as much C and does still have a good chunk of heavy metals (mostly Cu and Ni but it varies). I have an absurd amount of papers on this saved if you're interested, though they're generally focused on terrestrial EW rather than coastal or oceanic.

[@woody442]

Earth is big, these processes would be of huge scale and this impracticable. You end up doing more bad than good. We need to consume less, thereby produce less, thereby use up less of our planet.

[@beansnrice321]

@@koolkatkenzie1491 Copper and Nickle are valuable. Maybe there is a refinement step that can remove the heavier metals? Then sell both the metal and the crushed rock/slag?

[@beansnrice321]

@@woody442 We're already well past the point where simply halting carbon pollution alone will prevent catastrophe. If we started back in the 80s or 90s then we would have been been in a better position for that strategy.

[@woody442]

@@beansnrice321 Yet any ‚plans‘ are pointless, if we don’t drastically reduce our impact on the ecosystem.

[@Talon19]

7:00 Water vapor is released when fossil fuels are burned; so humans have as much an impact on increased water vapor as carbon dioxide and unnatural greenhouse gases.

[@hantrio4327]

Water is not a gas. It becomes a liquid again. The water concentration in the atmospheres is controlled by the oceans and the water temperature. We humans do not impact it significantly. CO2 on the other hand stays in the air and can only be reabsorbed by plants

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

Further, increased warming leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere

[@iQKyyR3K]

How often have you seen liquid/solid water fall from the sky? How often have you seen liquid/solid CO2 fall from the sky? Now let's put on our thinking caps and consider why CO2 might be a bigger problem.

[@csmrfx]

Can you provide numbers for this idea? Or is it just your superstition. In other words, what kind of numbers do you get for total water vapor evaporation VS human cation? 😅

[@Talon19]

@@iQKyyR3K More water vapor means more heat retained, more evaporation, more water vapor. Additionally, higher temperature air has a higher capacity to hold water vapor; 50% relative humidity at 80 degrees is much more water vapor than 50% relative humidity at 50 degrees. Water vapor is more present in lower altitudes, which is also where most warming is occurring.

[@ChimeraX0401]

I really do hope that more scientist will focus more to green chemistry and find more alternatives to chemicals that are more harmful to the environment....

[@williamine]

pretty sure the main source of nitrous oxide is whipped cream chargers from canadian tire :) 10.99 a box!

[@autismuskaefer]

Why is GWP dimensionless shouldn't it have a unit like Joules per mole seconds? Or is it just the Multiple of that unit-number of CO2?

[@Thunder-54321]

It's a multiple of CO2, yes

[@Mulmgott]

It is a relative metric just like the Octane number or IQ.

[@frtzkng]

Rule of thumb: the higher its potential ratings for _any_ kind of hazards are, the more likely you'll find it somewhere in Russia

[@helldad4689]

Really solid info but I think you flubbed the methane ranking. There's evidence that the clathrate gun has already started to go off.

[@GIRGHGH]

Who's in charge of forcing these changes to be made? I wanna know so I can yell at them to do it faster.

[@HAMMERTIMEBB]

People say polution when all it is, is free resources to grasp and resell to industrials

[@Paul-li9hq]

More attention needs to be focused on water vapour. Water vapor is Earth’s MOST ABUNDANT greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect. I would like to see a conclusive study on the impact of the MASSIVE amount of underground water extraction for agriculture! It makes sense to me that while this water is underground, it can not get into the atmosphere via evaporation... BUT we pump TRILLIONS of gallons of it up onto the surface for agriculture - where it is then obviously free to evaporate into the atmosphere. However, we are focusing our attention on microscopic trace element gases!

[@rzu1474]

Yea I think that effect is miniscule compared to the simple feedback loop: Warmer > more evaporation from the oceans > Warmer CO2 is the cause shut up

[@Paul-li9hq]

@rzu1474 co2 is a trace element: 0.04%. It's like saying adding an extra one grain of rice to a curry meal is going to spoil the overall balance of the plate, which is 50% curry - but we keep pouring on more curry 😂

[@briansimon8969]

I’m with you on this. I was just thinking about this a month ago when it was reported on the news that the aquifer out west USA is being quickly being emptied. There is a huge amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that wasn’t there 200 years ago. I’d like to see an estimate of how much water has been brought to the earth surface in the last 100 years

[@seneca983]

@@Paul-li9hq The concentration of water in the atmosphere is pretty much directly determined by temperature. It only matters as a feedback. Carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases (other than water) mentioned in this video matter because they can act as forcings, unlike water vapor.

[@ZA-mb5di]

11:48 why did those bars look like Juuls

[@Kualinar]

Sulphur hexafluoride and trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride are very heavy gases. This help to keep them close to the ground instead of high in the atmosphere. Still bad.

[@seneca983]

I've heard claims that the troposphere is pretty well mixed and doesn't much sort gases by density.

[@Kualinar]

@@seneca983 True, but, the heaviest gases tend to be slightly more present at lower altitude. As those two gases have a molecular mass far above that of all the other gases, they do tend to stay at lower altitude. Molecular mass of nitrogen : 28. Oxygen : 32. Carbon dioxide : 44. Sulphur hexafluoride : 142 Trifluoromethyl sulphur : 166

[@Zz-jo5si]

love your videos man❤

[@nathanielreichert4638]

This one piece ominous but is great! I know most newer cars are using rf1234, which is awesome.

[@AmethystMoon444]

Maybe it’s just bias and climate change can’t happen that fast but I remember back when I was a teen summers were obviously hot, but now it’s like you can’t even go outside and just sit there and breathe properly it’s so freaking hot, and we used to get summer thunderstorms and the sirens would go off for them but now when we have storms the sirens are for actual tornados. I’ve never came close to a tornado in my life but just recently we had 4 touch down around where I live!

[@trimethyldione]

I’m not a specialist in that case but in my opinion, climate change is a process that develops exponentially. In permafrost there are lots and lots of methane hydrate reserves. As it becomes more and more hot, permafrost is melting, and aforementioned gases are gradually released. As we know, methane is a greenhouse gas. So… maybe it's not even that bad that the climate is changing 🤔 People are frightened and so it becomes a bizarre bias. It is simply a natural process

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

It can change THAT fast and even FASTER if things keep speeding up due to the increasing rate of GHG release, sea level rise (which makes the earths surface darker on average lowering the amount of escaped energy), melting permafrost, receeding ice sheets (decreasing the cooling effect of reflecting sunlight into space), and increasing old-growth tree die-offs which are themselves ALL ACCELERATED BY WARMING. It's a positive feedback loop.

[@Mulmgott]

@@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676 One of the many ice ages in earths natural history seems to be ending right now. The planet was way hotter when it was still ruled by dinosaurs. Even if we are having a substantial impact we can't stop the earth from going into a warm phase again sometime in the future. Having frozen poles is not at all a constant in earth history.

[@cerealmama3879]

​@@Mulmgott was hotter *without us* What could happend if you add a bunch of monkeys in the equation?

[@awesium4077]

5:49 if the gas that is the second leading cause of climate change, then does everything else go into F tier? (I haven't seen the rest of the video)

[@maciejjakubiak2828]

Shit... Joey put N2O in C tier. Are you saying I should stop partaking in psychedelic tofu???

[@artysanmobile]

CO2 is released by autos and trucks in such monumental quantity that the others can almost be ignored. A trip to the store can result in POUNDS of CO2!!

[@raybod1775]

China is preparing for a 3 degree Celsius temperature rise, that seems optimistic.

[@FirstLast-oe2jm]

. I'd love to see a video from you on the atmosphere and chlorofluorocarbons, I'm sure there's way more to be said than makes it into my courses. The reactions are interesting, even if morbid at the moment.

[@Welgeldiguniekalias]

Methane should have been B tier at the very least. Just look at the graph! 15:00

[@Sniperboy5551]

Why don’t we forget about nitrous oxide? It’s the only thing that gets me through dental procedures… along with benzodiazepines 😂

[@batchat12t4]

I am not getting any audio, is that skill issue or is there no audio

[@That_Chemist]

Skill issue

[@batchat12t4]

@@That_Chemist thank you

[@That_Chemist]

we just made a new tierlist discussing flash powder which you probably wanna watch kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKW6goxpibt-nq8

[@batchat12t4]

@@That_Chemist Thats cool, i sure will

[@CSGATI]

Plants absorb CO2 but not freon etc.

[@missingno-xk7kp]

Justice for Carbon Tet!

[@BODYBUILDERS_AGAINST_FEMINISM]

Where is pogners :/

[@svenmorgenstern9506]

Water vapor. There, saved you 15 minutes. 😂

[@windhelmguard5295]

starts at 5:20

[@twocvbloke]

So it's not my wandering through plants growing behind glass while I suffer the effects of a good curry then? :P

[@manmeh4r]

great video

[@Dead.garden]

1 greenhouse gas we literally cant get away from water vapor yes water is a greenhouse gas 😂

[@nobody.of.importance]

If I remember correctly, any molecule with three or more atoms can act as a greenhouse gas.

[@Disc_11]

Nitrous increase is probably from people huffing it lmao

[@PolloDiPallude94]

I'm glad to see rhat the R12 sample pic was made in italy. Italians do it better! (even evil chemicals like R12 freon)

[@qbqbqdbq]

the fridge in my apartment died recently and it uses r-12 so i assume it was all vented into the atmosphere lol

[@That_Chemist]

It certainly did

[@lsswappedcessna]

RIP old fridge time to take it to a mechanic to have the system evacuated (imagine being a mechanic and someone brings you an old fridge. Oh well, if they're paying they're paying), put some new compressor oil into it, and convert it to R-134 and continue using it.