Beyond Tomorrow: Earth's distant climate future 

In the early 2000s I experienced the third Canary in the coal mine. The rising Arctic temperatures were allowing the mountain pine beetle to survive and within a few short years the mountain beetle consume 75 million hectares of forest. That is equivalent to the entire Forest canopy of Washington and Oregon combined

Here. Let me set up a thought experiment for you. So, let's imagine there's a special planet that has no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere and the surface only radiates one wavelength of infrared. Let's say it's 15 microns. At present, 100% of the energy in that wavelength is being radiated to space. None of it is being absorbed by the atmosphere. In this situation, adding a gas that absorbs that wavelength will add energy to the atmosphere. So, let's add 25ppm of Scary Dioxide. Now the atmosphere is absorbing 50% of the energy in that band of IR and 50% is still being radiated to space. Just like before, adding a higher percentage of Scary Dioxide will add more energy to the atmosphere since 50% of the energy is still making it to space. So, let's move up to 50ppm. Now, the atmosphere is absorbing 100% of the energy and none of the energy is making it to space. In this last situation, adding a higher percentage of the gas does NOTHING. ALL the energy coming from the ground is ALREADY being absorbed. The gas is LIMITED OUT. There are two exceptions--the ground would need to radiate more energy, since it's ENERGY that heats things, or the gas would need to make the atmosphere denser. Now that you know how the greenhouse effect works, here's the basic guidelines: 1. If a gas absorbs a wavelength of infrared that's being radiated from the SURFACE to SPACE, even if it's just a small percentage, that gas will add energy to the atmosphere. 2. If a gas absorbs a wavelength of infrared that's NOT being radiated from the SURFACE to SPACE, in other words, some component of the atmosphere is already absorbing ALL the energy, then that gas does nothing. It's limited out.

In the case of CO2, it absorbs 4 wavelengths strongly; 2.0 microns, 2.7 microns, 4.25 microns, and 15 microns. Of those 4 bands, only the 15-micron band has any energy. However, across those 4, the surface radiates both in the center of the bands and on the shoulders of the bands, about 3.4 watts/sqm/str. Not a lot of energy there. As for pathlengths, which is the distance EM radiation travels through an absorbing medium, they are ALL very short. In the center of the bands, from the surface, about 10 meters (25 to 30 feet). On the shoulders of the bands, about 300 meters. So, by 300 meters, ALL that energy is absorbed. Carbon dioxide is limited out.

As for carbon dioxide behaving like a blanket or some type of insulation, it does not. Energy transfer through the gas is substantial. It has translational and rotational components that will transfer kinetic energy and it has the vibrational component that transfers energy via resonance. (Keep in mind that the vibrational component is an internal energy and is NOT heat.) For a real world application, you might contact a manufacturer of double-pane glass windows and suggest they start using CO2 between the panes since it's such a good insulator. When they finish chuckling, they'll explain that they use argon since it only has the translational component to transfer energy.

As for methane, it has long pathlengths. But is it adding that much energy to the atmosphere? It has two IR peaks, one at 7.65 microns, which is the most populated peak, and another at 3.31 microns. A quick check of Boltzmann (statistical mechanics) shows that only .4% of methane is above ground state at the 7.65-micron peak and only about .0008% is above vibrational ground state at the 3.31-micron peak. So, it's not exactly adding much energy to the atmosphere. If you don't know how to work those equations, I'll show you.

Not to mention the untold volumes of carbon bearing gases emitted from currently frozen masses.

Activities of a supervolcano were and will be causing mass extinction. Activities of a asteroid, comet, were and will be causing mass extinction. There were always extinctions, and life survived ultimately. But activities of a carbon calcification and depoziting carbon dioxide will be causing mass extinction after 500 hundred million years from NOW- there will be no CO2! No photosynthesis. No life. Last extinction. Life on this Earth have already limitation set in stone. One billion years is enough. Dont worry, live your insignificant life, you and I we are just dust in the wind.

Every one of the millions of species alive today survived multiple 4000ppm epochs and several ice ages. Quit being such a drama queen.

​@@phil20_20 *ANTI-Science DISINFORMATION.* There is no methane in permafrost. It melts every summer and then refreeze a month later. There is no methane in Greenland snow and ice either. _Stop the lies!_

​@@robertmarmaduke186 "Every one of the millions of species alive today survived multiple 4000ppm epochs"

Or perhaps we shouldn't focus on any particular date at all, but rather that what we do today will have delayed consequences far into the future. It's a bit terrifying to consider the reality that even if we stopped all emissions today, that heat energy would continue to accumulate for a long time before reaching a new equilibrium ...

That's like when half of humanity has been wiped out already...

I agree, I feel it's a complete waste of time allowing politicians to organise summits and just agree to set dates that are comfortably 'beyond' their expected governorship of their individual countries. They pose grimly for the cameras, come home, do nothing (or nothing worthwhile), and forget all about 2035, 2060 or 2100. They know they won't be in power then, most likely, so it'll be someone else's problem. Governments need to start today, working out 'how' to create green jobs, green industries, cleaning current industries, how to make restoration of the environment pay. However, while politicians are chosen from people who worship money and economics above the environment, we're never going to get anywhere. Considering the years since the pandemic, and how rapidly the environment has become much more extreme since that time, and how little has been done by any government, I wouldn't be surprised if very large numbers of humans started to expire within 5 years. At the moment, people can still run from the floods, the wildfires, hide from the storms and hurricanes, even escape the droughts and wet bulb regions by moving about. But the food growing regions cannot. It's said there's going to be a large deficit in China's harvest this year, and other places around the world (eg. America's West) are expecting reduced harvest through drought, heatwaves and flood - and we're still in July. We've no idea what's coming for the rest of the season.

Please tell me after 20 years how your end of the world faring. Humanity have already shown incredible adaptibility - we live on every continent (except the coldest one Antarctica. ) Global warming will not lower human population. Global warming will not be a cause of extinction of human race. Global warming will have beneficial effects for colonization, navigation and mining of North and South pole.

​@@TheIgdrasil1 The most egregiously wrong thing you said; "[climate changing] will not cause decrease in human populations" Brother, it already is, why do you think there's so many migrants?

Question for you and Adam. What's your opinion on the recent survey conducted by The Guardian, where: "Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met." Thanks in advance.

@@Richard482 it's overly optimistic

my feeling is that that reflects scientists' perspective on the state of climate action, not something that is inevitable given our climate system. and so it points out just how much work we still have to do to align action with what we know we need to do to keep our planet (relatively) safe

@@oleonard7319 😅

@@ClimateAdam I'd have to disagree on that one. With people the way they are, the lives they want and the stuff they want. Big houses, nice cars, holidays abroad, meat and dairy consumption. African nations who feel they have a right to develop their fossil fuel resources to get people out of poverty. Due to human nature, I think the climate scientists in this survey are saying these figures are inevitable. Let's be honest here, a large percentage of the population don't want to give up those things, and those in developing countries want access to them.

not gunna lie... genuinely shocked myself that I can still land it

To date NOT ONE of the official 37 odd climate models are accurate forward or backwards, so they invented 'forcing functions' rubbish. It will be 720 years before Miami and get their feet wet and 1000 years before Seattle is as hot as DeIhi. It's lovely 18°C in Seattle this mid-July evening.

What if we capture those CO2 and turn it into solid carbon and CO2. If we can somehow reduce O2 levels to pre Industrialization would the temperature of atmosphere decrease?

@@JSM-bb80u What if we capture the carbon from our vehicle tailpipe and convert it to cheese-like substance. Then we can crumble it into our hemp-fiber shag rug, and snort it when we're high in CBD gummies, waiting for our government SNAP card!

Something to look forward too

We don’t get it!!!! Is that a Punchline or Whaaaat!!!

But the other important message, not mentioned in the vid, is that further warming is expected to stop when net zero is reached.

100% agree with everything you've said here, and I think we don't have any choice but to very slowly and painfully change it and go back to that time where most people could actually appreciate and respect the world around them. I don't see how we survive if that doesn't happen

PS saw that sk8 trick, you are much cooler than Tom Scott!

He could nerd out more for likes of us but are good intro pieces. And yes fun

aw thank you! still genuinely thrilled to have 50k of you here!

+0..04°C per year is the internationally-accepted standard. *It will be 1000 years before Seattle is 'CLIMATE BOILING!' Delhi,* ... and yet magically, 33,000,000 Delhians do fine! It's 32°C today.

a lot! in fact I'm gunna put together the outtakes vid for my patrons now!

that's genuinely awesome to hear! hope you love the degree!

My mom is more or less doing the same thing! She's in her later 50s and is almost done with school studying environmental science :) You got this!

@@deadlyshizzno Tell your mom she's a rock star! And thanks. :)

thanks Ingrid!

I am far more worried about short-term climate change than long-term change - & so are the people who live in historically hot countries, which are now getting even hotter & drier, even faster, for more extended spells. Sea level rise is also threatening some communities NOW.

We have had no nukes of any kind back then.

@@volkerengels5298What?

@@Babesinthewood97 This means that you are miscalculating the future if you rely on past experience. If you want to understand the risks of climate change (&species extinction) -> you have to take politics, sociology and economics into account - otherwise you get a completely distorted (trivializing) picture. These risks are more like multiplying...

@@volkerengels5298No need to mansplain something I never said!!

those aren't nuclear powerplants. thermal powerplants (including fossil fuel power plants) generally have cooling towers. they're not exclusive to nuclear power, and I think that association is mostly down to the Simpsons.

@@ClimateAdam My mistake.

We haven't averaged 1.5°C, only just this and last year. That's only a trend so far... 🤪🥵

Replant according to what baseline in time? Arctic coast had trees before the ice age Sahara can't sustain greenery like it did during Era of Gilgamesh. Was a skooch warmer then

Dint forget grasslands etc. Also, a real, functional forest is a complex ecosystem hundreds of years old... not a plantation of one, often non-native, species covering vast portions of land without much biodiversity or ecosystem services

Reforestation is huge. But like others have mentioned, biodiversity is going to be the real key. Complex ecosystems are going to be more resilient to changes in climate. Additionally, planting a tree is one thing. But ongoing care to ensure the survival and establishment of a system is also very important. Planting trees is only the beginning. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t do it. But we also need ongoing thoughtful stewardship of these new forests.

@@zerkig9058 wouldn't mind seeing a general compare & contrast of forest vs C4 Grasslands on a variety of metrics Usually not an either or proposition as Steppe and Prairie is usually seen where too arid, windy or fire prone to support trees. Forest is Apex ecology of all terrestrial biomes if inputs are sufficient to support them Agree, I'd have a regulation that 20% of a block is a second tree species; preferably one with seed or fruit of interest to wildlife, rather than industry preferred conifers

@@JumpingSpider37 once established are good to go but the early years do require follow up care 👨‍🍼

We’ve interrupted your regular glacial cycle.

I legit love walking

thank you Dennis!

thanks so much for being a part of this channel! it really means so much to have voices like yours here!

Yes, but timescale is debatable. One Spanish paper found CO2 pulses in Cretaceous were absorbed within a millennium If correct could be ~300ppm by Y3K 🎉

That notion focuses on CO2. But if you take both cutting out aerosols and methane into account (not just aerosols) the picture is similar. Check the video I linked to at that point in the vid.

ahh you're too kind! but I'm seriously so chuffed to have 50k of you lovely CliMates!

it was a surprisingly interesting rock!

Most humans don’t care about things ten years down the road, much less the year 2100. If you’re wanting people to adjust their actions by thinking about things thousands of years from now, that’s not going to happen.

Not if we remove it with DAC? It might only take another 100-150 years for co2 to reach normal levels again.

@@andremattsson i don't see that happening

@@DecadeAgoGaming I think it's the most likely scenario. We are on a trajectory to reach over 1 billion tons by 2050

@@andremattsson so that's another 25 years of Co2 buildup from human sources alone, there won't be a civilization left to operate those DACs

@@andremattsson so 5 to 10 billion tons removed in the 25 years it takes to reach that, we'll emmit atleast 400 billion tons in the same timeframe, so i don't think there will be people left to remove Co2 after that

What does methane break down into when bombarded with high speed particles? Do you know? It actually breaks down into CO2. CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, so reductions in methane would only slightly reduce warming.

​@@jaykanta4326well it is more potent while it is CH4 as the CO2 bandwidth of infra-red is comparatively saturated. Cleaner air from combined GW induced de-desertification (dust) and fewer smokestacks 🏭 in post NZ will have brighter hotter days than used to Statistical game when lower night Temps offset it

@@DrSmooth2000 citations required. You won’t bring any

@@DrSmooth2000 As I figured, no citations to back up your claims of "saturation" or evidence of "statistical games". Try not to lie so much.

not wrong at all that methane is short lived! but it's not the only thing that reduces in the atmosphere when we stop emitting. aerosols do too, and since they have a cooling effect overall, stopping them would effectively lead to more warming. in short.. if we stop emitting everything, temperatures more or less stabilise. all this is discussed more here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q3Gol-EK1uE.html

welcome!

it was indeed 🛫

depends on the distance

@@0topon ok I will pull out my tape measure 😁😁😁

@@omarjassar4650 i recommend measuring it in the night, otherwise you could get injured by the heat

@@0topon don't worry , I wear my sunglasses at night , so I won't be Blinded by the light 😁😁😁

@@0topon do I measure from pole to pole or from the equator to equator ?

Adam has a video on geoengineering. Wouldn't call him an outfront of it Booster of idea. I'm opposed 》

But yes, there will be a secondary warm peaking assuming we cool after NZ Eventually atmo over sea surface is so cold the ocean releases heat to maintain balance. Century or millennial scale

thank you!!

woop woop!

as said in the video, we have (in a century and a half) raised CO2 higher than it has been in our atmosphere for millions of years. so this is way out of the balance of the planet's normal CO2 cycling (which - yes - includes volcanoes)

@@ClimateAdam If i remember correctly, we were being told "scientists are surprised" by the speed at which the air cleared, when we put in place lockdowns for coronavirus. My logic tells me that this means, there is something going on with the chemistry of the atmosphere, that we don't fully understand. My thoughts are that, maybe, there is some kind of feedback loop, that is slowing down the process of eliminating the CO2, that has been triggered by the colossal amounts we have emitted over the last 150 years. If by some miracle we did stop emitting the quantities we currently are, and have been for decades, the feedback loop would no longer exist, or would be turned back off, and the elimination process would re-establish it's pre industrial revolution rates.

to removed 80ppm from the carbon cycle naturally requires between 50 to 100 thousand years according to resent historical measurements

How much CO2 do volcanos put in the atmosphere? And how does that compare to the amount of CO2 we release from burning fossil fuels? Consider for example the last Yellowstone eruption, 640,000 years ago. Yellowstone is one of the largest volcanos in the world, but its CO2 barely blipped the historic record. For the past 800,000 years (the extent of really good CO2 records from ice cores), it has stayed between 170-300ppm. In recent times before the Industrial Revolution, it was around 280ppm. It is currently over 420ppm, and rising at close to 3ppm/year. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% globally in less than two centuries. Volcanos simply do not compare.

@@davestagner Which bit about "(not suggesting they are worse than humans)", is it you don't understand? My point is, if it has stayed between 170-300 ppm for the last 800 000 years, and every time a volcano erupts, it takes 10s of thousands of years, why has it not been steadily increasing before we started dramatically increasing the CO2, bearing in mind we put more than the volcanoes, because volcanoes don't put as much as humans, because humans are bad volcanoes good? I am not questioning the stupid humans contributing to a problem we wouldn't have if humans weren't as stupid and only volcanoes existed. I am questioning the validity of the argument that it would take so long for mother nature to re stabilise the levels to the pre industrial levels, of 170-300 ppm. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that the models turn out to be talking nonsense, because we forgot to put a factor we didn't think to be playing a role.

if we actively work to reduce CO2 levels the picture would 100% be very different

Fun fact: climate and weather aren't the same and you certainly can make accurate climate predictions further out. Don't believe me? Then that means you genuinely don't know whether next January is going to be hotter than next July in Canada

for sure - actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere would help undo some of the warming (and associated issues), if we were removing more than we were causing. some things (notably tipping elements) would not reverse, though.

@@ClimateAdam Okay, thanks for replying!

while the extraction of precious metals is absolutely harmful (environmentally and in terms of social impact), it absolutely does not cause more ghg emissions than ICEs. there's lots on this, but here's an example: www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change/ so EVs are def an improvement, but they're also def not problem free. which is why many argue that solutions like public transportation, cycling infrastructure, more walkable cities, need to be also be implemented.

@@ClimateAdam whoever is looking at that is dead wrong. a ford explorer lets say take the yearly emissions from that vehicle. Next take the yearly emissions from lets say a D9 dozer i guarantee yo that vehicle emitted more greenhouse gases in a years time. So to say mining operations that operate 24/7 dosen't emit as much is just people burying their heads in the sand. Im sorry I see absolutely no way we can live a modern life without fossil fuel.

Jawohl!

Those are the cooling towers of a fossil fuel plant. Cooling towers are used in general for all thermal power plants, and are not specific to nuclear (but I think the simpsons maybe gave everyone that idea)

@@ClimateAdam Oh ok, my mistake. I thought that because I've already seen this kind of association, and I've even seen a representation of cooling towers with black smoke coming out of them to represent a nuclear plant, once. Anyway thank you for answering!

I hope I was used as an example not an exception!