Methane: The Arctic's hidden climate threat : Natalia Shakhova's latest paper. 

I've watched a previous video with Natalie Shakhovia a few years ago, concerning this topic. You presented the facts beautifully for us non-scientists. Great work.

It was a press conference by Natalia Shakhova in 2012 I believe, that first got me interested in climate change. I remember having stumbled upon this by accident, she seemed extremely concerned about what was happening on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. Having caught my interest I delved some more and noted she and her team were being widely pilloried by the scientific community and by some in the climate activism community. This was at a time when making statements about the more extreme and severe effects of climate change were being downplayed for a number of (not very good) reasons. In the intervening period her concerns have been validated as almost all the observations have confirmed that the effects are all at the most severe, worst case scenarios.

In Australia . A public majority is now trying to convince our Govt. that more action is necessary....but it's not actually a real a Government anymore...it's more like an International franchise dealing in our resources sector .-with Faith Mining ,Media Landscaping and Sovereignty Extraction services, it's forte. The Head Office is overseas somewhere..but we're not sure like I said ..they just dont answer our calls !

Remember when we thought we could avoid climate change by using energy saving bulbs? That was nice.

It was 2013 or 2014 that I saw a movie "Arctic Death Spiral, the Methane Time Bomb" which caused my climate anxiety. That movie was a clinical study of Post-Traumatic Shock, actually ongoing traumatic shock. Nathalia is my hero, and I think that we have to listen to her. She was almost in tears along with almost every other climate scientist when they filmed those interviews. This was a great video you have done, I'll put the word out.

Great and balanced video per usual. One small hitch- the initial potency of CH4 is approximately 120x during its first year, 115x after 5 years and ~105x after 10 years. The 80x applies more on a 20 year timescale. This is a very minor point though, as due to methane degradation the full forcing or maximum temperature growth from a "pulse" would likely not be reached. Edit: I realized some people may want a source for this claim. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf It is from chapter 8 of the IPCC 5 assessment report. You can see the varying potency on figure 8.29. Some may think the IPCC is conservative, but this is mostly for the models used. The physical science is top-notch and extremely reliable. I learned quite a bit from this video, please keep them coming!

If/when the arctic farts, it's the beginning of the end for team human.

It's amazing how many people who are oblivious about what is happening in the Arctic. Even when you try to inform them they just don't want to know and some even think that you are loopy. This does not look good for the world's future at all.

In a nutshell, this is why for the past few years of paying some attention to this subject I really don't mind being called an alarmist. I AM ALARMED that so many people including scientists will very likely be caught unprepared for how rapid planet earth will become inhospitable to most life forms unable to adapt. It'll be like waking up from taking a nap high up in a tree dreaming that I'll just roll over in bed. That HOLY SHIT moment is coming.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

I've been paying attention to Natalia Shakova since I heard Guy McPherson quote her data in 2015. She's the lead Scientist for the International Arctic Research Centre. I'm glad she's getting more attention. If you can't see that her research is so much more dire than anyone is willing to admit then I don't know what to say. It's so long been good to know ya time very soon..

Hey JHAT, thank you so much for Shakhova's latest paper. She is a very good researcher and does not deserve the critics that hapened to her.

You are a great presenter. I learned something new from this. I hadn't thought about the shelves under the sea containing so much organic material from previous terrestrial life. And much of these hydrates are in solid form presently in vast amounts on the ocean floor. A slight average warming of the sea releases these and everything that was locked up in the hydrate stable zone. In Canada, we are already seeing northern taiga tree die-offs as the underlying permafrost melts and presumably saturates the roots. It's overwhelming and sometimes my only hope is that the models are hyperbole. It would seem that they are very conservative. Things are changing. This is a silent, slow motion meteorite impact that we seem only able to study document and revise predictive models right up to the point where there is nothing we can do about it. I was learning about this in the late 70's and 80's, yet here we are. I suppose it would be easier to accept if it was a natural cycle that we had no control over. Hard to separate "belief" from "science" when no single person could possible comprehend the complexity of all these interacting cycles . However, my gut and limited science background tends to agree with the majority - we have a hand in doing it to ourselves. Hard to look at the next generation in the eye with that realization. Nothing- not even a growing economy is worth that price. It's such a shame that we don't inherit memory as a part of our genome. If we had the accumulated memories of millennia, I wonder if we would still walk the same path.

if this threat is immediate and real, it is completely unnecessary to further investigate. By the time we gather enough information there will be no one to read it...

So we have: -idiots telling us everything is fine. -scientists in labs telling us it's happening and it's bad. We need to go something. -scientist in the field telling us the lab scientist don't have a clue, it's more than bad it's catastrophic -the rest of us thinking "fuck! What the fucking fuck!?"

Zeigfriedsays: "Zat is what I am trying to tell you!" This information has been available for decades, but almost no one has been listening.

Great presentation of the evidence. Clear and concise for everyone.

This is another perfect example how, the discussion around what to do about avoiding a possible climate catastrophe focuses on small individual changes in our behaviour instead of how society has been organized and structured. No matter how much anyone of us recycles, switches to better light bulbs, maybe turning down the a/c a little or buying an electric car it won’t make a bit of difference overall in regards to this issue and to what could be the final blow to the climate. So therefore, we’ll not include it in any predictions and pretend it’s not happening, is almost criminal from the scientific community.

Many thanks for this, it’s just what most people need, good, honest, non-bullshit info. Thanks again, superbly well presented .

If such DOES happen, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to stop it.

Thank you for talking about this very important issue. To think that this isn’t considered in climate modeling, must be one of the most unscientific thing ever.

Love these videos, even keel and full of references. Keep up the good educational work!

Well presented, informative & somewhat alarming. One minor point is your reference to a feedback loop. You should make it clear that this is a positive feedback loop which will cause acceleration of the methane release and hence acceleration of global temperature rise. Not everyone understands the difference between pos and neg feedback.

Wonderful as always. You are performing a major work of education for mankind. You draw attention to the way in which Natalia and her work were ignored, pilloried and ridiculed for no good reason other than that she was a woman and a Russian, and that the "methane establishmnet" didnt contain anyone who knew anything about he Arctic, so they thought that if they ignored it, it wuld go away leaving gthem to build gtheir careers in warmer places. It is sad to report that this very week (Oct 2021) there is a set of meetings at the Royal Society run by those very same establishment types who scorned Shakhova, Best, Peter Wadhams

Well made explanation - Thank you for compiling and sharing

Great job showing key aspects of the research. Especially the part about the methane hydrate stability zone.

I really do enjoy watching your channel. It’s one of a very few that I’ve hit the subscribe button for. And I do apologize for piggy backing into it with links to my blog postings on the subject of global warming. It’s such an intensely important topic that I really thank you for a job well done!

As always, concise, easy to understand information which is greatly appreciated. As a 70yo, one becomes somewhat more philosophical about death, which nevertheless doesn't diminish my concern for the future of those much younger than myself, my own family included of course. My true particular interest in this subject therefore is 'timing'. Given the enormous complexity of all that is involved in the unfolding climate change and its impact on all life on the planet, my understanding suggests our species will begin to experience very serious consequences (food availability in particular) in less than 20 years! How do you see it? I understand if you do not wish to comment on this question.

Thank you for this communication. Shakhova's team has done a brilliant job! Science is and has always been about this - telling us what we need to know about nature.

Complicated work presented well and facts easilty accessible. It's a shame humanity doesn't give a stuff, because it was really a lovely planet!

Finally someone is talking about methane. We don't stand a chance. Too late. Enjoy the moment.

To bad so many are distracted. Our civilization is hooked on fossil fuel. No way to stop what is to come. About ten years till it hits the fan

Every time you say "a long period of time " I can't help but look at your HiFi...

Nice piece. I don't harp on this point, but I should: temperature is interesting, but energy content is critical and should be what people focus on when discussing global warming, which is the net accumulation of energy from the sun into Earth's systems of water, ice, land and air. The energy content of air is tiny compared to the energy content of water at the same temperature. That means that the energy available for transfer to other things, such as methane clathrates, etc is far greater for water than for air. Thus, water can and will cause greater changes when compared to air at the same temperature.

The IPPC has left out MORE than only methane in their calculations. The influence of solar activity and cloud formation for example..

Humans: here for a good time, not a long time.

Many thanks for the clear explanation. It's a dire situation and just one motivation of many for us to engage in urgent geoengineering specifically to restore Arctic sea ice. We also need urgently to reduce green house gas emissions rapidly to zero and to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As I said, it's dire and urgent. A clear emergency.

Awesome info to the cause of our up and coming demise. Excellent work in making the difficult understandable. If only we could refreeze the ICE. THANK YOU.

One more reason to move on, do something about climate change. We need to be more knowledgeable on the subject (thanks for this very nice opportunity), speak with people, convince them it's serious, take the streets, put pressure on politicians, but try not to make it a partisan issue. OK not to vote for deniers, that's obviously the most important thing to do, but let people with a different world view keep it and yet acknowledge that climate change is an issue. All of this is not enough. We need to invest money and possibly time and commitment in small projects that have a chance to scale up and reduce our carbon footprint (sustainable farming, breeding, transportation, energy production and storage ... ). And we need to encourage our kids to do all of these things. We can still make it. I would even suggest that everybody who understands how serious this is, refrain from having children, and instead put all the energy in making the future safer for those who already exist.

Watch out people! After the methane release your winter will be -10C instead of -20C. Better stock up on ice cream to keep cool.

Great job, yet again! - Thanks.

It's just as well that people aren't able to grasp how scary Natalia Shakhova's research actually is. We are not ready so not ready for what's coming. Boy I really hope Beckwith Guy McPherson and many many others are wrong.

Although it still isn't a perfect idea, you could use that methane as energy and release less harmful CO2 rather than methane.

For balance, you should present the views of Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.

The methane 'Big Burp'. Absolutely terrifying. 8C world here we come!

Thank you for your fastidious work in summarizing the highlights of this vitally important report in layman's terms.

An excellent report following up on Shakhova & company ‘s first one.

Not mentioned is the effect of methane released in ocean water, it will further increase the temperature of the water, hence solidify the feedback loop.

This is brilliant. Thank you so much. It reinforces the concept that we are heading for near term extinction unless we are able to wake up, radically reduce our carbon emissions, capture and store existing atmospheric carbon; and radically change how we are, how we live our lives, and how we relate with each other and with the planet.Phew! Thanks again, and thanks to Nataila Shakhova and her team. :)

Recent research of thawing from the previous ice age shows no sign of any massive release of methane from the Arctic. There was significant release from the tropics as the temperatures increased. But, it was relatively normal considering the increase in vegetation..

I hate these non-scientist vloggers, their videos are useless, they mention everything except which day precisely our world ends. ;) Great video, informative, well documented and summarized as usual

You can walk around Anchorage and see bubbles coming up out of lakes, ponds, mud puddles. Its been so hot here you can barely stand up.

Brilliant video Dave. You always manage to pack so much info into a short period of time and make it understandable. Your explanation of how the hydrates were formed along with the diagram is excellent. Also, you always seem to find a movie clip I've not seen before. I really hope the West reads and listens to what Shakhova and her team say, as I seem to recall she has been ignored by the West in the past. I keep an eye on the methane levels, hoping that the methane balloon, so to speak, doesn't go up. If it does, well, I think you are aware of the rate of heating that would cause. I expect you will start to get invitations, if you have not done so already, to speak about the climate crisis/emergency at various events and functions soon :-)

Another great presentation.

We need some aspiring chemistry Nobel laureate to devise a low energy/passive way to utilize the sun's radiation to break down by photolysis unwanted & harmful surface level ozone and in so doing increase the atmospheric hydroxyl radicals which in turn break down atmospheric methane. You saw it here first!

Good video, you're a good speaker. It is beyond comprehension that tens of millions of Americans utterly dismiss all of this because Al Gore said it was happening. Also appalling are the Americans who deny this simply because they lack the education required to understand the science. I know people who will say this is ALL "just your opinion". It's truly sickening.

If we don´t do something BIG very soon, we´re f.cked. It´s a long known truth - even in 2008 when I started studying ecology at the university I´ve known it. Yet to this day I see mankind only bickering about politics and other unimportant BS and doing virtually nothing to reverse these trends :( What other signs we need to change our ways? :(

I covered the finalization of the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC's Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere (SROCC) in September 2019 and methane release due to permafrost thaw was finally mentioned: "There is medium evidence with low agreement whether northern permafrost regions are currently releasing additional net methane and CO2 due to thaw." Still a very conservative statement, but fact that it was in SROCC means the IPCC will address it in some fashion in their 6th Assessment Report currently in process.

You posted this excellent video 4 hours ago, and you already got six dislikes. Peculiar. As if some dislike robot automatically dislike climate change you-tubers.

Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955): "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace." Clear and concise without any emotional weeping or hysteria. Although the omission of methane from IPCC calculations suggests some kind of malign influence on scientific opinions. Really this is a prime chance to employ the 'precautionary principle' that would champion low carbon sources of energy. If we had focussed our efforts on renewable energy earlier, instead of farcical military budgets, the price of energy wouldn't be gouging the life out of western economies. Joseph Schumpeter: “Created by the wars that required it, The Machine now creates the wars it requires.” Joseph Schumpeter: “Politicians are like bad horsemen who are so preoccupied with staying in the saddle that they can’t bother about where they’re going.” Georges Clemenceau (1841 - 1929): "War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."

Nature's little 'Reset' sub-routines are fascinating aren't they?

Thank you so much for this super important informational video! I remember shakovas earlier statement reg methane threat. Since then there has been hardly any mentioning on this subject, not even from her or her team as far as i know. Guy Mcphearson has thankfully kept us informed about this horrible fact of threat! Once again, Thanks. David. Sweden.

Excellent report! The IPCC is very conservative so we can expect climate change to get much worse sooner rather than later - probably by 2025.

JustHaveAThink...you are exactly correct. Nobody knows how big and what the trigger will be or when. However, it is a Positive Feedback Loop that cannot be put back in the bottle. Once it is triggered it could be the end of large animal existence, and death to sea life. It took Billions of years of struggle, courage and pain to get us to this point in our evolution. To jeopardize it all, is unimaginably stupid.

Cheer up, Dave. You know what they say. Some things in life are bad, They can really make you mad. Other things just make you swear and curse. When you're chewing on life's gristle, Don't grumble, give a whistle! And this'll help things turn out for the best... And always look on the bright side of life!

The quantum physics and bulk physics is: ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that isn't vibrating can be made to vibrate when it collides with another molecule (I don't know what %age of the collisions do this, I never studied quantum physics). When this happens the combined kinetic energy (sum of square of speeds) of the 2 colliding molecules decreases. The molecule will get one of its many vibrational modes that have various energies depending on the mode. This energy will precisely match the kinetic energy loss of the 2 colliding molecules because energy cannot be created or destroyed unless equivalent matter is destroyed or created (nuclear fusion/fission). I don't know whether the vibrational mode acquired (or none acquired) is dependent on the speeds of the 2 colliding molecules or the angle of collision or both so it might relate to the speed difference such as whether the greenhouse gas molecule is slower so it gets a kick but I'm just throwing out guesses because I never studied quantum physics. ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that is vibrating can lose its vibration when it collides with another molecule (I don't know what %age of the collisions do this). When this happens the combined kinetic energy (sum of square of speeds) of the 2 colliding molecules increases by a kinetic energy precisely matching that of the greenhouse gas molecule's vibrational mode that ceased. This is a greenhouse gas molecule's "Molecular Vibrational Energy" being converted to additional "Molecular Translational Energy" of one or both of the 2 colliding molecules. When 2 molecules collide the slower one speeds up and the faster one slows down. This is called "heat transfer" in bulk with many molecules involved. It's also called "entropy" or "The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics" (always homogenizing Universe, so 2 things colliding never causes the slower one to slow down and the faster one to speed up because that would be reducing entropy in a closed system and entropy cannot be reduced unless it's being increased somewhere else in the Universe by an equal or larger amount (So the Sun's relentless entropy increase can be used in theory to decrease the local entropy of Earth's sphere out to the stratosphere or some such by using the energy that Sun delivers into Earth's sphere on account of Sun's relentless entropy increase converting matter to energy. I think I've digressed but that's why the coal/oil shill meme that greenhouse gases can't warm Earth's surface because surface is already warmer than atmosphere above it and (they say) "defies the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics" is a load of tosh because Earth isn't a closed system because it's open to Sun and the Universe)). "Molecular Translational Energy" is also called "Molecular Kinetic Energy" and when the molecules are in vast quantity such as a cardboard box full of them it's also called by the more popular name "heat". ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that isn't vibrating will absorb a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation if the wavelength of the radiation happens to coincide with an aspect of the molecule's vibrational modes in that the photon's energy (which depends on its wavelength) precisely matches one of the vibrational energies of the molecule. When this happens the energy quantum has been changed in form from the Universe's basic energy transverse electromagnetic radiation to "Molecular Vibrational Energy". See the previous item for how this "Molecular Vibrational Energy" might get converted to "Molecular Translational Energy" (heat) if the molecule happens to collide before it spontaneously releases a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation. I recall reading that the Mean Free Path and speed are such that the chances of losing that energy by collision (changes to "heat") are orders of magnitude more likely than releasing a photon spontaneously before collision (1,000,000,000 or a few 1,000,000,000s of collisions / second, I forget exactly, research it). ----------- - A greenhouse gas molecule that is vibrating can spontaneously releases a photon of transverse electromagnetic radiation and stop vibrating. The wavelength of the photon will precisely match the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" that the molecule had before it stopped vibrating. This means that if it spontaneously releases a photon from "Molecular Vibrational Energy" that it got from absorbing a photon then the wavelength of the photon released will precisely match the wavelength of the photon absorb. If it got the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" from a collision then the photon released will be at the wavelength (i.e. energy, wavelength determines energy) corresponding to the "Molecular Vibrational Energy" vibrational mode that it got on collision (see above for how I don't know what collision details determine that). Each greenhouse gas has a number of vibrational modes with a specific energy for each mode and more complex molecules have more vibrational modes so are more powerful greenhouse gases. Also though the power of a greenhouse gas will depend on what specific band of transverse electromagnetic radiation wavelengths it absorbs (which is determined by its vibrational modes) because the spectrum that the ocean surface sends up into the atmosphere peaks at 10 microns so for example, if CCl(3)Cl(2)F, CClF(2)CClF(2) and CH(2)BrCH(2)F should all absorb intensely in a band between 7.5 and 12 microns then this encompasses the 10-micron peak of the spectrum that the ocean surface sends up into the atmosphere so it would be a very powerful "greenhouse gas" and have great warming effect in very small quantities. I seem to recall from years ago (but I might be remembering wrong) that you can find vibrational modes of CO2 at www.barrettbellamyclimate.com which has a more comprehensive description of greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect than my comment here anyway. The vibrational modes of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere (it's absorption/emission spectrum) correspond to a series of wavelengths of transverse electromagnetic radiation in the following range: --------------- wave-l cyc power micron / cm w*cm/(m**2*cycle) 510-550 ~0.4 total in the low-frequency wing 18.18 550 0.015 17.86 560 0.025 17.54 570 0.067 17.30 578 0.148 17.24 580 0.148 16.95 590 0.150 Flat top 590-670 15.00 667 0.150 The centre, the peak. 14.93 670 0.150 14.71 680 0.149 14.49 690 0.148 14.29 700 0.147 14.08 710 0.145 13.89 720 0.144 13.70 730 0.142 13.51 740 0.141 13.51 750 0.139 13.33 760 0.128 13.16 770 0.052 12.82 780 0.033 12.66 790 0.010 790-830 ~0.90 total in the high-frequency wing That isn't a list of CO2 vibrational modes above. That's divided arbitrarily by me into 10 cyc / cm intervals. You can likely find at www.barrettbellamyclimate.com the CO2 vibrational modes that cause that overall power distribution above. The "power" values listed are specifically the amount of power that's being absorbed in Earth's atmosphere). --------------------------- The combination of 4 energy transformations above plus Earth's atmospheric lapse rate of 5-10 degrees of temperature decrease per km of altitude increase depending on humidity (average ~6.75 degrees / km) results in warming by the "greenhouse effect" because energy is being sent to space from greenhouse gas (GHG) molecules at a range of altitudes in the atmosphere instead of being sent to space entirely from the surface and the energy amount becomes less as the atmosphere becomes colder (becomes higher) because colder means slower gas molecules (see the 1st section above) so fewer collisions / second so less "Molecular Vibrational Energy" of the GHGs per second so less transverse electromagnetic radiation is being spontaneously released (fewer photons / second). So the more GHG molecules there are the higher/colder is the average place in the atmosphere from where they can make it up through the other GHG molecules above and get to space so there's more Sun's radiation energy getting absorbed than Earth's radiation energy being sent to space, so Earth's atmosphere, oceans & land must warm. The warming sends more radiation energy to space from GHG molecules in the atmosphere than it did before and when it finally matches Sun's radiation energy getting absorbed the warming stops. That's global warming when it's caused by increased GHGs. It's now 83% of Earth's radiation energy to space is from GHG molecules in the atmosphere and 17% is direct from Earth's surface because that 17% is in a band of wavelengths that aren't absorbed by H2O, CO2, CH4, O3 or N2O (called the "atmospheric window"). An increasing GHG can cause warming until there is so much of it in the atmosphere that all radiation energy in its absorption band of wavelengths is being sent to space only from its molecules at the very top of the troposphere in the tropopause where the atmospheric lapse rate of 5-10 degrees / km altitude no longer applies and temperature remains constant, then the GHG effect is "saturated" in its absorption band and no further warming can be caused for that particular band.

We're toast.

How to piss off a scientist... Scientist: "Positive feedback loops can cause runaway climate change which could lead to collapse of civilization, or even extinction of the human species." Me: "Yes. Let's focus on the positives."

To bad so many are so distracted by the daily stuff. Most are more interested in a dancing dog or a idiot in the White House. Thank you for this vid but we all are not going to change the coming events.

i Tech "Another problem My main complaint on this latest report is that it does not explain the GWP vs. gas concentration, and the spectral implications of green house gases. In very low concentrations, photons leaving the earth typically miss the GHG molecules. Doubling the GHG concentration doubles the number of photons scattered. The relationship is linear. As the concentration increases, photons get to where there is a 100% probability that they hit a GHG molecule, with the resultant photon going up or down 50% of the time. ________ At very high concentrations, all the photons are intercepted by GHG molecules. Seen from space (which is all that matters), only the GHG molecules near the top of the atmosphere radiate to space. .. But it is cold up there, and that determines how much of the GHG radiation leaves the earth. At these high concentrations, the relationship of concentration to warming is logarithmic. That is why they say for CO2 the warming depends on the doubling of the concentration. 1,2,4,8,16.. each interval requires double the prior concentration to produce the same heating". ________ ________ Thanks. There's a misunderstanding of the physics in your comment but it doesn't alter any conclusions. "doubles the number of photons scattered". The photon isn't scattered, it's either absorbed or not absorbed (just passing through) with the photon frequency relative to absorption frequency band and the location within the molecule being passed through being what determines absorption or not. So, CO2 for example has a broad "sweet spot" at photon frequency 15.00 microns with smaller "sweet spots" at photon frequencies above and below that, thus having best absorption at photon frequency 15.00 microns because the odds of going through the "sweet spot" are increased. --------------------- The conversion of transverse electromagnetic radiation (TER 1 photon quantity) to molecular vibrational energy usually results in that molecular vibrational energy being converted to molecular translational energy (aka "molecular kinetic energy" aka "heat") rather than a photon being released because the collision rate in the atmosphere is of the order of billions per second for any gas molecule (I can't remember whether it's 1,000,000,000 collisions /second or 5,000,000,000 collisions /second but it's a lot. Usually it collides before a photon is spontaneously released. This means that the long-wave radiation (LWR) TER is mostly caused by collision of gas molecules which then can have some energy converted from molecular translational energy to molecular vibrational energy in one or both of the colliding molecules if one or both of the colliding molecules has >2 atomic nucleii in it (is a GHG) then that molecule that got molecular vibrational energy might spontaneously release a photon of TER, losing its vibration. So a volume of gas warmer than 0K will be emitting LWR (or longer wavelength TER) even if no LWR is being radiated into it, the molecular collisions causing that. In essence the energy is transmutable both ways: TER photon --> molecular vibrational --> molecular translational molecular translational --> molecular vibrational --> TER photon, and also the partial you mentioned TER photon --> molecular vibrational --> TER photon, and also molecular translational --> molecular vibrational --> molecular translational It just can't go directly TER photon --> molecular translational or molecular translational --> TER photon, it needs to go via the molecular vibrational state of a triatomic+ GHG molecule. In this sense the cartoon used by climate scientists is highly inaccurate but of course that doesn't matter because it shows the basic concept.

Awesomeness Program and host 💙☝

We are so screwed.

you do an excellent job of understanding and communicating the state of climate science, keep up the good work.

Really good detail in this video, Dave. With the usual calm and professional presentation. Also, like yourself, I've found it frustrating as to why the Arctic trapped methane [what the USA would deem Free Freedom Gas, no doubt] has been totally left out of climate models. I have only been able to conclude, so far, is that the release of methane from the permafrost layers is relatively less quantifiable, so far, and subject to many variables, so in order to not be deemed pseudo-science, the IPCC have preferred to leave this slow acting time-bomb out of the equation. Of course, such is the nature of HICC that the processes involved are invariably well underway before we commit to doing anything to attenuate them. This one isn't yet and therefore the measurable data is lacking in comparison. It seems that unless the Grim Reaper is staring everyone in the face, governments would prefer to do what they've always done. That is to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and sing la-la-la.

Great presentation , surprised the frackers aren't up there hailing it as the next big gas play.

I've done the calculations for warming of the top 20 m depth of the Arctic Ocean with no Arctic Ocean sea ice. Presently the lower latitudes send an annual average of 122 w/m**2 to the Arctic Ocean. The top 20 m depth of the Arctic Ocean will have an average annual temperature of: +2.8 degrees if the present 122 w/m**2 is still sent to the Arctic Ocean in warm air from the lower latitudes, or +0.3 degrees if the present 122 w/m**2 in warm air from the lower latitudes is reduced to 90 w/m**2 after the Arctic Ocean has no sea ice and more of its "own warming". Therefore, it's going to be somewhere in that range of +0.3 to +2.8 degrees depending on where in the range of 90 to 122 w/m**2 is the heat sent in warm air from the lower latitudes to the Arctic Ocean. It cannot be

Good info, great presentation, but BAD news.........not sure if it's OK to plug a FB page, but check out Climate Change Preppers group. I'm a member, not a moderator. we see what's coming, but don't give up hope. lots of great info.

Thanks for this excellent report! Keep up the good work!

Very informative, and simply explained for ordinary folk like me, great job!

thanks. i'll go have a think. Good content good sir

Ha! I've been talking about that muskeg thawing and rotting since the 80's. This is a major very soon to be major issue.

GOVERMENTS ARE THE ONLY TOOL HUMANS HAVE TO REIGN IN FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES AND CREATE GREE N INFRASTRUCTURE!! THERE TL NEEDS TO BE PEOPLE!! THERE NEEDS TO BE HOPE!! THERE NEEDSNTO BE ACTION!!!!

The first million solar installations in the USA took something like 30 years. The second happened in the last 3 years. Let’s keep it up! Personally, I installed 10KW and leased two electric cars. The panels keep up with the house and both cars 10 months of the year! YOU CAN DO THIS TOO!

Interesting video. I wonder if you can capture the metane and produce electricity or use it as vehicle fuel?

Thanks Mister Think, very interesting. I don't recall a fault line or fracture zone through the ESAS but I'll need to re-check my Miss Teen South Carolina Global Atlas. If I can possibly find time eventually I'll read that paper not so much because it might extinct all Life but more because it's FREE.

The fact that methane + oxygen + bacteria CO2 + H2O + biomass means the removal rates increase non-linearly with concentration means that a very large release will just get converted into CO2 and the half life in the atmosphere will decrease.

It seems that increasing global dimming may be our only way of slowing down this catastrophe.

The good news about methane is that we can eat it. Mehanogens are high protein bacteria and with methane and a little nitrogen from the Haber process can be fermented for feed or food. See: Nouritech, Unibio. This is a continually running process not dependent on animals, weaTher, water, land, seasons, insecticides, pesticides . Food from the ancient forests. And that frees up land otherwise used in farming and ranching for reforestation. No agricultural run-off.

Lovely. The worst case scenario just got a lot worse, nevermind more likely. Beachfront property in Arizona, anyone?

great series, i love watching your video's. in northern italy we are about to experience the hotter heat wave since a century or so with temperatures as high as 40-43 degress celsius. it can be very hot in the summer, depending on heatwaves, years, ecc. but this year it looks we are going to see some unprecedented stuff. i wish i could do more to stop this madness. unfortunately nor I,. nor anyone else can. it is not by recycling that we will save our world. we would need to cut our consumption. less smartphones, less cars, less food, less clothes, less garbage, less everything... are we really interested? by the way, we are living in a solar minimum right now, in 10-15 years we will be in a solar maximum. will be interesting to see what will happen to global weather once global temperatures will be already in a high thanks to global emissione, feedback loops, and we will add also the extra irradiation from the sun.

As usual an excellent presentation...although terrifying!

This is one of the great unknowns about global warming that has the potential to really be a "GAME OVER" changer. It could cause a tipping point which is a very good case for observing the "precautionary principal" with respect to CO2 emissions reduction.

I really wish we could just cease using any references to 2100. There may be alot of data sets already done for that year but it seems to also make people tend to lessen their emergency sense and relax a bit at a time when just the opposite needs to but isnt happening. We are just dead honestly, my family knows it but kinda brushes under the table, cant make every meal indigestable after all. 2100... i wonder what will the wolrld will actually look like then...que the welcome to the new world neo part of tha matrix movie. And it could be much much worse than that scene. It could be virtually unrecognizable??? Excellent production though btw, i enjoyed it.

Brilliant presentation! Thanks!

Well hello to the Venus 2.

Do you have any good news for us? Perhaps just make up something rosy? I was actually avoiding watching the video, its like another instalment in a horror movie....Despite that, thank you so much for shining a light on info/report that is not normally read at least by me.

They will not consider this till the end of ALL civilization and then even they will not acknowledge this fact

Hi Guy. Are you balancing the Audio by taking off some of the Hi End. You know, old people lose their hearing, and the first thing to go is the high end. It makes you sound kind of mushy and it is difficult to distinguish between vowel sounds. So, anyway, take a look at what your Audio Filtering looks like, and if you are clipping the High End, well, turn the knob. Thanks.

Well, if only people would tell the truth about methane. The comparison to CO2 uses an averaging heating formula over time giving the GWP (global warming potential). But over time the methane will essentially gone, while the formula still has an average component - exaggerating the effect of methane especially over the longer time interval. The other serious error in the missing statement that the forcing (heating) caused by any green house gas decreases, as the concentration of the gas increases. In addition, the formula compares equal masses of CH4 to CO2, which exaggerates the molecular comparison by the ratio of the atomic weights 44 / 12. So, even though we don't want to see new releases of CH4 in the Arctic, our task at hand is to reduce our emissions of CO2. We need to keep our eye on the ball, and not be distracted by methane hysteria.

Didn't she work for NIGR at one point, when gazprom was looking at harvesting the hydrate from the Arctic sea floor ridge?