The carbon cycle is a crucial process that regulates Earth’s global temperature and climate by controlling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It involves the transfer of carbon between different reservoirs on Earth, which is essential for maintaining a stable climate and carbon balance. Greenhouse gases like methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and water vapor significantly affect the amount of energy in the Earth system. The climate-carbon cycle feedback is one of the most important climate-amplifying feedbacks of the Earth system, and is quantified as a function of carbon.
The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere. These gases, including CO2 and CH 4, significantly affect the amount of energy in the Earth system. The carbon cycle reinforces itself by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere, leading to increased evaporation and higher water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
Global climate change affects carbon uptake by land and oceans, which impacts the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 and, in turn, climate. Certain human activities emit additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, increasing the amount of heat that gets absorbed before escaping to space. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas contributing to recent climate change, entering the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels.
Climate-climate feedbacks are expected to amplify climate change and its impacts, with the greatest and most uncertain effects in a high carbon emissions future. A carbon cycle model is proposed to predict changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and provide a global temperature estimate.
📹 The carbon cycle is key to understanding climate change
Until a few hundred years ago there was a perfect balance of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. Human activity has …
How can the carbon cycle influence the greenhouse effect?
Human activities, such as burning wood, fossil fuels, and other forms of carbon, significantly impact the carbon cycle. This process releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, forming greenhouse gases that absorb and release heat. The concentration of carbon in the atmosphere determines the Earth’s climate, with too little causing it to freeze and too much turning the atmosphere into a furnace. Understanding the carbon cycle is crucial for the Earth’s future.
The Department of Energy (DOE) supports research on the carbon cycle through the Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program, which focuses on atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The program also supports systems biology research focusing on plant processes that convert CO2 into more stable forms of carbon and the complex relationships between plants, their microbes, and soil microbes.
Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases, along with methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Carbon can be removed from the atmosphere using technologies like carbon sequestration, such as direct air capture. In the past, about 25% of carbon emissions from human sources were captured by forests, grassland, and farms, while about 30% was captured by the ocean. However, these percentages may change in the future as humans continue to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
What are 3 causes of enhanced greenhouse effect?
The burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and livestock farming are causing a significant increase in greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. The 2011-2020 decade was the warmest, with the global average temperature reaching 1. 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2019. Human-induced global warming is currently increasing at a rate of 0. 2°C per decade, with a 2°C increase compared to pre-industrial times posing serious environmental and human health risks, including the risk of catastrophic changes.
What intensifies the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are altering Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil, which contribute to increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This excess greenhouse gas traps more heat, leading to Earth’s warming. To counteract this, plants, like trees and phytoplankton in the ocean, help balance the greenhouse effect by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen.
The ocean also absorbs excess carbon dioxide, but this increased carbon dioxide in the water leads to ocean acidification, making it more acidic. Overall, human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm up.
Is carbon dioxide the biggest overall contributor to the greenhouse effect?
The burning of fossil fuels is accumulating CO2 as an insulating blanket around Earth, trapping more of the Sun’s heat in our atmosphere. This anthropogenic action contributes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is crucial for maintaining Earth’s temperature for life. Without the natural greenhouse effect, Earth’s heat would pass outwards, resulting in an average temperature of about -20°C. Most infrared radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, but most is absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds, warming the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Greenhouse gases also increase the rate at which the atmosphere can absorb short-wave radiation from the Sun, but this has a weaker effect on global temperatures.
What form of carbon contributes to the greenhouse effect?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, accounting for 80 percent of all U. S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. It is emitted through burning fossil fuels, solid waste, trees, and biological materials, and is removed from the atmosphere when absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock, agricultural practices, land use, and organic waste decay in municipal solid waste landfills.
Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural, land use, and industrial activities, combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste, and wastewater treatment. Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases emitted from various household, commercial, and industrial applications. They are sometimes used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances and are sometimes referred to as high-GWP gases due to their ability to trap substantially more heat for a given amount of mass.
What is the main cause of the greenhouse effect?
The combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, has resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to the carbon-oxygen combustion process in the atmosphere.
How does carbon dioxide affect greenhouses?
Temperature significantly impacts plant growth, with most biological processes increasing with increasing temperature, including photosynthesis. The optimum temperature requirement for crops depends on the availability of CO2. In greenhouses supplemented with CO2, plant growth increases dramatically with increasing temperature, indicating that supplementation increases the crop’s optimum temperature requirement. This increase in production is not possible at ambient CO2 levels.
CO2 supplementation also impacts nutrient uptake, with rapid growth due to enhanced root and shoot growth. This allows for greater uptake of nutrients from the soil. It is recommended to increase fertilizer rate with increasing CO2 levels, as normal fertilizer rates can be exhausted quickly, leading to nutrient deficiency symptoms in plants.
In general, nutrient requirements increase with increasing levels of CO2. However, some micro nutrients are depleted quicker than macro nutrients. Studies have reported low levels of zinc and iron in crops produced at higher CO2 levels. Further decrease in transpiration and conductance with CO2 supplementation may affect calcium and boron uptake, which should be compensated through the addition of nutrients.
What causes the greenhouse effect to be amplified?
Water vapor, a greenhouse gas, plays a crucial role in climate feedbacks due to its heat-trapping ability. Warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air, increasing the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and amplifying the warming effect. Aerosols, microscopic particles suspended in the air for days to weeks, can also affect climate. Human activities like burning fossil fuels and biomass contribute to emissions of these substances, while some come from natural sources like volcanoes and marine plankton.
Which part of the carbon cycle contributes the most to the greenhouse effect?
Scientists calculate the contribution of each greenhouse gas to Earth’s greenhouse effect by analyzing the wavelengths of energy each gas absorbs and the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide accounts for about 20% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, while water vapor accounts for 50% and clouds 25%. The rest is caused by aerosols and minor greenhouse gases like methane. Water vapor concentrations are controlled by Earth’s temperature, which affects the amount of water vapor in the air.
Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, expand air masses, and increase humidity. Cooling causes water vapor to condense and fall out as rain, sleet, or snow. Carbon dioxide remains a gas at a wider range of atmospheric temperatures than water, providing initial greenhouse heating to maintain water vapor concentrations. Scientists have found that carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect.
How does increasing carbon affect the greenhouse effect?
Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most crucial greenhouse gas, absorbing and radiating heat from the Earth’s surface. It is responsible for supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature rise. In 2021, the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab observed that carbon dioxide alone was responsible for two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases. Additionally, carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean, reacting with water molecules to produce carbonic acid and lowering the ocean’s pH.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean’s surface waters has dropped from 8. 21 to 8. 10, causing ocean acidification. This drop in pH is referred to as ocean acidification, and a healthy ocean snail has a transparent shell with smooth contoured ridges, while a shell exposed to more acidic, corrosive waters is cloudy, ragged, and pockmarked with ‘kinks’ and weak spots.
📹 How humans disrupted a cycle essential to all life
How one animal dug up carbon and put it back into the atmosphere at an astounding pace. Become a member of the Vox Video …
dear economist team, can you please look into and add Regenerative agriculture and holistic land management to the list. modern industrialized agriculture has been causing massive damage not only to carbon cycle but also in soil degradation and loss of diverse habitat which over time has massive negative consequences. Soil more than anything els is the biggest carbon sequestration footprint, if only we let and intensive soil do it and keep it in the soil. not only that, carbon heavy soil is a richer much more productive soil. so much to talk on this subject. comment section is not enough to explain the complexity and massive potential and need of moving to regenerative ag. please do further research on this. I am subsirber of yours. i have researched your archives and got virtually nothing on this subject. thank you
Burning fire wood is carbon neutral. Assuming the wood your using is replaced with a new tree.. thats the problem. The trees are not being replaced at the same rate there being chopped down. If carbon had a tax value to be spent on replacing trees this method might work. But consequences are not taxed.
I would be interested to hear what the viewers of this article are doing about this. For me, I have installed solar off grid for my house. I have planted over 50 Teak and Mahogany trees as well as many more fruit and flowering trees. Planting trees is not plant and forget, each tree planted needs regular watering and soil improvement. Living in Thailand, imported cars are heavily taxed, so a 40 KWH Nissan Leaf is US$65,000, only Singapore is more expensive. So the electric car will have to wait. Anybody else care to share?
I have moved close to work and shopping which has reduced my carbon footprint on travel. I ride my bike when possible. I live in a condo and that reduces my utilities in comparison to a house, I have outfitted the condo with energy efficient lighting and appliances all the while mindful on how I use them. I also like how condos house more people on a small piece of land. I will definitely be looking at a electric vehicle once we can get the parkade retrofitted for charging stations. I try to recycle as much as possible and even better try to buy what I need rather than a bunch of things I just like. With that I am still looking for ways to do better.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the best (simplified) approach to solving climate change: Emissions Reduction: -100% zero emission energy sources, with a majority made up of renewables like wind and solar, and nuclear serving as a reliable back up source of power. -Reduce meat and dairy consumption to around 1/3 to 1/6 of what it currently is, while using measures like better animal feed, silvopasture, etc., to reduce the emissions of the remaining livestock -Promote universal k-12 education, women’s rights, access to contraceptives and abortions, and high-quality health care. These measures would give families more autonomy to chose the number of kids they want, reducing population growth -100% zero emission transportation, with most vehicles either being electrical or using carbon neutral fuels from direct air capture -Require all new buildings to be carbon neutral, and retrofit existing buildings to be as well -Either passively or actively restore depleted farmland, so it can produce food again -Replace high emissions materials like steel and concrete with low carbon alternatives, or with organic carbon negative materials, like wood or bamboo -Aggressively halt deforestation Creating New Carbon Sinks: -Trillion tree project -Repopulating the mammoth steppe -Marine Permaculture -Direct Air Capture
Carbon sink technology whether it be generating carbon bonds (i.e. putting more energy into capture than we get from burning fossil fuels, as per the laws of thermodynamics) or making a liquid (without it just adding to emissions) and than pumping it subterranean (which also costs massive amounts of energy) both seem not feasible or illogical while we are still burning carbon anywhere.
Solution to the Global Warming problem is to forcibly implement the establishment of Carbon Capturing Plants within the vicinty of all fossil fuel emitting industries all across the globe such as Thermal/Coal Gas based Power Projects,Petroleum Mining and Quarying plants,Cement Factories and Iron and Steel Industries.
Humans are predictable. They won’t act on environmental issues, UNTIL IT’S LITERALLY AT THEIR FRONT DOOR, the ruling class is DIRECTLY affected or it begins to cost them financially. People dying wont move them. Look at Sandy Hook – no change. COVID-19 deaths- Most states are ignoring masks and social distancing
OK, Smartypants what is the hydrological cycle and why is it so hugely important to seasonal and climate regions worldwide? What is the relationship between the Sun and the vastly much greater ocean and atmospheric water vapor content? What are the functions of the frontal systems beginning in the arctic and so on? And oh yeah what are the jet streams and why do they exist? What are sunspots and what are the solar output variations? Now, what are albedo variations caused by changes in landscapes, like deforestation megacities or farming grasslands? Understanding the carbon cycle is the key to climate change? Burning hydrocarbons is an urban health hazard not a climate change problem. The other things mentioned are much higher in the scheme of climate change actuality than hydrocarbons. However, the behavior of certain corporations over the years has created a distaste for them and their business hence the political theater and the accompanying hype.
pollution is bad . we all know that. bad air, bad water, bad health. It’s best to stop the discussion and take action. * July 2020 was the second-hottest month ever recorded on Earth. * June 2020 was the second-hottest June of all time. * May 2020 was the hottest May of all time. * April 2020 was the second-hottest April of all time. * March 2020 was the second-hottest March of all time.
Why do we still have central means of electricity production? When the solution is already available. Solar panels + Solar Battery (I have this already and in summer my electricity use is 100% solar powered) on every house, building, warehouse, school, rooftop etc. All new cars are Electric cars immediately, the ones with or without solar panel rooftops (already available). Just bring it in, never mind the inconvenience – all new cars must be electric by 2023. All new small trucks must be something like a rivian or tesla cybertruck or equivalent. All new heavy trucks must be hydrogen or electric trucks. That would be a huge help
DAC (Direct Air Capture) is not a working technology as of now. It needs great amounts of energy to work and basically has a very low sinking/emissions ratio. It will take years or decades to make it work and scale it. The main tool we have to limit otherwise catastrophic damage is to slash emissions now (the next 10 year will be crucial). To aid the decarbonization process, other carbon sinks – especially nature-based – might be deployed, but only as a supplement to emissions cuts. A word to editors: 9.5 bn tons of Carbon (as world yearly emissions) is not accurate. In fact, 9.5 bn tons of Carbon = 34 bn tons of Co2, (multiply 9.5 by 44/12, the ratio of molecular weights of Co2 vs C). But we know (for example from the Emissions Gap Report of UNEP) that we emit something in the range of 42 bn tons of Co2, not 34. (Plus there is all the rest of non-Co2 GHGs carbon emissions, such as methane, which brings the total to about 55-59 bn of Co2 equivalents).
The human Experience is a ‘Story’ in the form of a Holographic Simulation, produced by Programs, being played in “The Processing System of LIFE”… What happens in the Earth Program, is solely Controlled by the Program, being played in “The Processing System of LIFE”…. Discover and Understand the DIFFERENCE, between “LIFE (The Real Self)”, and the human PRIMATE, which Contains DOUBLE LOGIC in its GENOME, adversely affecting ALL human activity, including ‘THOUGHT’ and ‘REASON’.
Carbon Cycles are not the same as Climate Change Problems ! Sea level has been stable over the last 100 years .None of the PREDICTIONS by the Alarmists were proven correct . Climate of Planet Earth has been related to Sun’s Activities, Earth’s Orbit and Tilts which are and were Not Constant ……from ~20 to 24.5 degree with a 41,000 Cycle ! We had GREEN SAHARA in the past ! CO2 levels in Air are relatively Stable so far. But Earth and Climate Will Change in the long term . ( BBC has documentary on Orbit and Tilts etc. )
Can someone explain to me why the Earth can’t easily make up for the human emissions by absorbing more CO2? I read that Earth is a natural carbon sink, so why shouldn’t it be able to absorb the extra amount by, in a sense, feeling that things are out of balance and adjusting for it? By the way, I’m not a climate denier; just want to understand better.
Why there is an underlying tone of hatred to human development and progress. When they put the first clip of the industrial revolution, they put that scary sound effect along with it. Why I feel like there is an ungrateful sentiment in this whole article. I mean, it is complicated. Yes, climate change is happening, and yes humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but at least we stopped dying at the age of 4! Also, we’ve only been aware of our impact on the climate since the 1960s. That’s not a long time ago, and we aren’t doing very bad for people who just woke up to the problem. The world is not going to end from climate change, and we will be okay, as is the earth and the ecosystems will be. Technological development, and reduced poverty will be the most important aspects when it comes to battling climate change. Not stopping fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be abandoned if renewables are more attractive. Therefore we need to make renewables more attractive and not just demand that fossil fuels be banned, and demonize humans and human development. Read Bjørn Lomborg if you want to know more about what I’m talking about.
Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact. There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming – and what those hundreds of millions of years have to tell us – people need to know and understand at hseneker.blogspot.com The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.
Don’t know where you get your claims from, but none are facts. In the Holocene epoch, we are at the low end of CO2 concentrations. In fact, levels more than 10 times as high have been present, even in cool periods. Study geology, study solar cycles, study the Milankovich cycles. Appreciate that earth has been much warmer in the past, and much cooler, and that we are in an interglacial period, with warming starting in the early 19th century after the Little Ice Age. Temperatures 100 years ago were very similar, then we had a cooling period, warming in mid century and then cooling again before the warming of the late century. From 1996 to 2010 there was no warming, despite an increase in CO2. There is no increase in extreme weather or in forest fires. Alarmism keeps on ignoring the fact that every single prediction, since the very first IPCC report, has been proven wrong. A scientific hypothesis that is disproved by actual measurements is WRONG, and that is what has happened. Find something new to spread alarm about huh !
Dont be a sheep. Green solutions are being held hostage by capitalism and have been since the combustible engine was invented. That’s why there are no affordable options. Climate projects are promises about an uncertain future built on speculation all rolled up in a sales pitch and used by people that made a career out of getting more sales for more money by any means necessary. Our brightest minds cant tell us the future…neither can the fat guy in sales. Every option is a gamble for the price of a guarantee. If it reduces your cost of fuel, energy, or anything else the price is hiked as much as possible and the consumer is financed with interest. A salesman takes the money you would free up from their project (unless theres uncertainty in our future) plus tax credits from the government, looks at your income, decides how much to charge per unit or project, and overwhelms you with details. Next you know you’re FINANCING an uncertain future. Sure…the fat guy in sales is doing his job the best he can in hopes that someday it will pay off just like the rest of us. But allowing companies to use green tech and projects to benefit from exploiting the environment (and us) from a problem they caused and financing it to us is the ultimate insult. I guarantee industry would change everything about the way they impact the environment if they got the bill for it. Of course they would just add it to the consumers bill. But at least that way green projects wouldnt be a new industry with the demand to charge who knows what.
Global warming is the most important issue today. We decide now if the Earth will be livable for generations after us. My suggestion would be to put a hard cap on the amount of CO2 each nation is allowed to produce. Corporations then have to buy certificates at auctions allowing them to emit some amount of CO2. The money that is earned by this is used to support renewable energy and other environmentally friendly technologies.
Thank you for including holistic grazing in the article, dispelling the myth that livestock is an enemy of the environment. I think that using machines to store carbon underground isn’t cost or energy efficient enough to do us any good. We’re probably putting out more carbon to power the machines than they’re actually storing.
My grandparents live in the countryside, up in the mountains, 4 kilometers away from the city. It’s comforting when on vacation but there’s barely any human settlements aside from the neighboring houses. Everything is green and untamed. Farms are erected at various places but the entire mountain range are ravaged by the forest green. At night, everything is pitchblack if not for the urban lights. The moon and the stars shine bright at night, animals, insects and birds sing their hymns…looking back in time, this village could have been submerged underwater or filled with strange creatures unknown to us. Despite the beauty of the place, I cant help but appreciate to live in a time to appreciate these kinds of things. Without humans, these untamed lands are boring and dull. Life continues with only two objectives: procreation and survival of the fittest. Without humans, nobody will be there to appreciate its beauty. We maybe an invasive species but it us who made this earth livelier. Mother Earth probably grew bored perusal dinosaurs devour everything and asked Uncle Jupiter to throw her some asteroid. Maybe Mother Earth got tired of the dull life his children are living and was fascinated when apes started to walk upright. Maybe Mother Earth let us live because we are a delight to her. Invasive but amusing creatures. Maybe, the reason why were still here is because Mother Earth is proud that we, her grandchildren went into the moon and explored her sibling planets. We who explored ouside her neighborhood, the solar system.
Thank you for this!!! Hopefully, climate change deniers will see this super-simple explanation, and hopefully even just a small percentage of people who feel that humans aren’t affecting these negative changes on our planet have an “ah-ha!” moment, and pull their heads out of the tarpit. We have to all be on board, so we can all change our destructive habits.
its scary to imagine inhabiting a finite bubble with limited resources and tightly coiled natural processes only just now beginning to unravel, but its necessary i keep an aquarium, and similar chemical cycles are crucial to keep the fish alive, involving the fish, the plants, smaller creatures, and the microbiology of the tank all working together to keep the chemical components of the water at safe and healthy levels if one aspect is tipped too far in either direction everything dies, virtually overnight we need to start considering our situation as being just that precarious
I think more carbon is removed as carbonates in the ocean than is removed by any fossil fuel generating process. Of course, some carbonates get the CO2 cooked out of them by volcanoes. Not trying to dispute global warming here, just pointing out that carbonate deposition in the ocean is by far the biggest carbon removing process.
Please try making this article available in all languages. The story of global warming and its reason being human activity must be known to and understood by every person in this world. This article has told the story really simplistically, this being able to engage anybody with itself. I can volunteer to get it translated in Bengali and Hindi, if you let.
Our industrial level of carbon output has escalated the natural cycle of carbon emission. The carbon cycle occurs naturally, however because we are putting more carbon in the air than can be dealt with naturally, it is causing change and problems for other species who aren’t evolved to deal with these changes. We need to be more mindful of the other plants and animals that live alongside us. Just because we can use all this fossil fuel doesn’t mean we should be using it at the current rate.
Nice vid, that’s basically how it works and it trully seems ever so grimmer each week that passes without major news about fixes on the short and medium term. There will be people that will call out a few imprecisions but, as a whole, it explains such a complex scientific topic on straight-forward simple english
Till now earth has lost 67% ecology, 98.97% biodiversity, 99.95% animal species gone extinct, 78.79% fungus gone extinct, fungus are medicine for trees, trees are no more immune from micro life infections, ecology is immune system of earth, biodiversity is the nurvous system 😢, now you understand what wrong we have done 😢
I like the premise and the format is pretty good, but try not to dumb things down TOO much to the point where it’s inaccurate. Plants don’t “convert carbon into oxygen” and a cycle where some carbon gets sequestered into the ground is not a stable cycle. There are other mistakes, but the point is: don’t make it easier for deniers to poke holes in your article. Once they show those two points wrong, they’ll justify to others that the whole thing must be wrong too.
There’s one major blunder in this article: The Earth’s temperature is regulated by clouds. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant, doesn’t affect temperature. Geological climate research has revealed that an increase in CO2-level in the atmosphere always trails an increase in temperature, it doesn’t precede it.
3:24 hold it a moment… Growing more trees WILL help sequester more carbon. BUT it’s actually YOUNGER trees (less than 35 years in the case of most of the conifers we grow here in the Pacific Northwest) that do this best. It’s counter-intuitive but harvesting mature timber and REPLANTING is actually better for carbon sequestration and slowing climate change than letting forests continue to grow past maturity. (The worst thing for climate change would be to let these forests burn and release all that carbon back into the atmosphere… and yet if you don’t let some burning occur you wind up with catastrophically large fires that release MORE carbon.) Now, if you want to have a conversation about letting forests grow past maturity for the sake of structural diversity within the canopy to improve habitat for wildlife, that’s a different discussion. But if your only concern with regard to forest management is climate change, you’re actually better off cutting mature timber and replanting with seedlings.
OK, I’m 100% on side with everything you’ve said but…I don’t know the delivery just felt a bit…patronising? I know there are “the hard of thinking” who will claim none of this is happening and I know Kurzgesagt explains this kind of stuff with little cartoon ducks but it felt like I was being talked down to a little.
Why the heck is the article beeping from ~3:29 onward? I first thought my tinnitus was acting up. Sorry, but that “music” really makes it so I can’t finish the article. Also, plants don’t convert carbon into oxygen (0:26). That would be an alchemists wet dream. They convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and sugars.
I wonder if this simplified explanation will change any Climate Change deniers’ mind. My gut says no. But it doesn’t matter, we have to move pass trying to convince them and just fix the problem already. We have to elect politicians who will actually DO something about Climate Change, especially in the heavy carbon producing countries like the US.
“Imagine a world where clean air and water are scarce, where wildlife is disappearing at an alarming rate, and where the effects of climate change are felt every day. Now imagine a world where we take action to protect our planet, where we work together to find solutions, and where we create a sustainable future for ourselves and future generations. Which world do you want to live in? Join us in taking action to solve ecological problems and create a better future for all. Spread the word to your friends and family, and let’s make a difference together.”
Isn’t the best method to cut down trees and replant them, and the use the wood to make something? Otherwise the old trees stop growing and consuming co2, or if they die it will be released again. When using wood in for example construction, the co2 is stored in the building material, and a new tree can be planted
A lot of misinformation here. Carbon levels used to be extremely high, then about 2 billion years ago early phytoplankton species began and pulled large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. The sinking blooms underwent anaerobic decomposition and became a very large portion of our oil reserves, not dead animals animals. Most dead animals don’t go underground and undergo aerobic decomposition where carbon quickly returns to the atmosphere. There are some exceptions such as peat forming wetlands. There is also nothing inherently wrong with rising carbon levels. The jurassic period had much higher levels of carbon than currently. The problem lies in the rate of carbon and temperature change. If the same changes we are currently experiencing happened over 10k years as opposed to 100, natural selection and evolution would allow for species to evolve with the changing environment. External inputs are normal, such as the algal blooms beginning billions of years ago, massive wildfires, volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar radiation. The issue with this article is not that it outlines important issues, it is that it gets enough wrong for people to label it as liberal media, bias, and lies. Please do more research and portray issues without faulty information if you actually want to change the minds of those who are on the fence or are in denial.
Remember: the only countries that didn’t sign the Paris Agreement were Nicaragua (which argued that the agreement didn’t go far enough. Also, they later still signed the agreement, because it was better than nothing), Syria (which is war-torn, as everyone already knows) and the United States of America (which has an idiotic brainwash-master, who is super-easily influenced by FOX & Friends, as President). So; China, North-Korea, Great-Brittain, Mexico, India, Saudi-Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Cuba are among the countries that have signed AND ratified the agreement… Just saying
Increasing livestock will help in reducing emmited carbone? That is not what numbers say, in fact, reducing livestock is one of the essentials to reduce carbone in the atmosphere. It’s one of the responsibles due to the gas emmited by the animals, the natural forrest drestroyed in order to make grass fields or grain cultures to feed that animal, and a lot of reasons more. You can argue that you refer to a sustaintable livestock farming (animals living in grass flieds and not destroying forrest to make those grass fields) but in order to do so livestock would decrease (less grass fields available and no grain). fao.org/gleam/results/en/
First let’s get renewably powered with solar PV, wind and hydro along with grid batteries and electric transportation then secondly perhaps we could build Gigafarms in every city creating food, money, jobs along with high sequestering plants for creating biochar where we bury our industrial carbon emissions rebuilding our coal mines. 412 ppm presently back to 270 ppm by 2100.