Can we stop climate change by removing CO2 from the air? | Tim Kruger
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 11. 2017
- Could we cure climate change? Geoengineering researcher Tim Kruger wants to try. He shares one promising possibility: using natural gas to generate electricity in a way that takes carbon dioxide out of the air. Learn more -- both the potential and the risks -- about this controversial field that seeks creative, deliberate and large-scale intervention to stop the already catastrophic consequences of our warming planet.
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted - Věda a technologie
Plant trees stop deforestation
@Jennifer KHOO actualy the papers we use aren't the main cause of deforestation because paper industries replant trees in order to have a constant supply (same thing for the christmas tree) the one who deforest are palm oil industries and the cattle industries ( mainly in brasil) because they cut down massive chunk of rainforest and replace it with basiclly nothing in term of co2 absoption
Its not enough. Its one thing but we need much more.
@@estelleguillaume6056 Palm oil is derived from Palm Trees, which via photosynthesis ,convert atmospheric CO2 to oil fruits. So, these trees actually help to mop up CO2 released by industries and human generated fossil fuel based economy. If you need to use oil for cooking, please use oil that are derived from TREES...next, per hectare of palm trees can produce much more oil than other oil crops..a factor 1 to 10 or more..
Jennifer KHOO we can use hemp paper
@@aheetan6548 yea but to plant the palm oil trees they cut down large portions of the Indonesian rain forrest, which takes in more co2 than palm trees
I think it is super important what this man is doing--he is not just talking about the problem itself, but he is actually trying to solve it. Because let's face it: a lot of people are talking about climate change and what to do about it. While informing people about what is happening is precious, telling people what they can do and how they can participate in simple ways is even more powerful.
Quick Fix if we did then plants would die then we could die duh
gracie! Whoever might be there listening up there, please give me strength, or I will punch someone through the internet...
He didn't talk about removing ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere, you d*****s!! He clearly statet that we could reduce OUR EMISSIONS BY 60%!!
Humans are the problem
self certifried. It could be different. Humans are the problem but we don't have to be. No ones forcing us to eat cows and pigs which is our biggest problem. No one's making us use gas and oil. We choose too.
Global warming is NOT real
#wedonotconsent
Lots of problems here. However, let's start with just one totally futile part of this process. The diagram at 2:01 shows quarried limestone (calcium carbonate) being heated to remove CO2 and end up with quicklime - CaO. The limestone has already sequestered CO2 underground, so why on Earth remove it at great cost and have to store it back underground?
because under the fucking ground is where it belongs, keep it there, don't bring UP the CARBON in the first place, and CAPTURE the fucking CARBON in any "permanent" manner possible, and geologically timespan possible is what counts to solve this.
CO2 is necessary for trees. In fact trees are mainly made out the carbon that is made from the CO2 in the air. They intake gallons of water but only 5% of it will be used and 95% of the water will be evaporated.
Trees have been thriving for many years before the number of Co2 went up. They are not taking all Co2 out of the atmosphere. They are just removing enough to stabilize the atmosphere
Fact is that out of 31 units of CO2 released last year , only 1 is man made . Even if we went to zero it would have no effect . In the past the CO2 level has been much higher 20 times higher ....... and the worlds temp have been much hotter than it is today ............. And yet we are still here
@@peterpendergast5778 That is not true. We are in the higher spike in the history and that is a fact. Stop denying the truth as the emission have been increased exponentially and it is obvious that it will affect the CO2 emission in the atmosphere leading to global warming. The poles are melting and the reflectivity decreasing, causing sea levels to increase and CO2 to be absorved.
@@lucaslosantos8307 U are deluded, The 3% fuigure came from Professor Ian Pilmer . Another fact is that if u look into the artic ice cores u can see in the past CO2 reached 8,000 PPM ....... now its only 400 PPM "The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation." ............ So as u can see it was back in the Ice ages we had 4,000 PPM or 10 times our current levels . Unfortunately Idiots like u do NOT understand Science or do some basic research are the problem
No Trees survive by us breathing out corbon dioxide Trees produce Oxygen for life on earth.
The current CO2 level is 400 ppm but during the last Ice Age it was about 180 ppm. At 150 ppm plants begin to suffocate as they need CO2 for photosynthesis and produce the oxygen we mammals need for life. Throughout geological history, CO2 levels varied mainly between 4000 and 8000 ppm, so our current level is a very low level compared to what might be considered "normal" for the planet.
The difference is that this CO2 is not just a natural variation, this CO2 is our fault and it's getting out of control if we want to keep living on this planet.
Natural doesn't always mean best, so even if CO2 levels were higher way in the past it doesn't mean it would be better, (or even slightly ok,) if they were higher right now.
@@gadu64 CO2 levels (like sea levels) have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. This is well-known from ice core samples. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas as any gardener knows what happens on a clear night in winter. The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper has been in print since 1831 and has reported alternating wildfires, droughts and floods since then, so that is the normal climate there. But if a few modern bungalows get burned down it is "climate change"!! With "natural" events there is nobody to blame, but "climate change" can be blamed on somebody's actions, how very convenient.
He's onto something with that lime business. You add lime to reef aquaria in order to increase the pH and decrease acidity.
I wish the host would have asked the speaker more about the process he was talking about. Such a fascinating and paramount breakthrough in science, well done!
This is horseshit.
Not only is carbon capture a "good idea" but it MUST be part of the solution. We must capture the CARBON we've released, taking the Keeling Curve back DOWN to where it should be.
Kruger's natural gas solution is HORSESHIT. It is just an exchange process that USES a carbon-releasing greenhouse gas energy source. Part of the only solution is to keep that fucking GAS UNDER THE FUCKING GROUND.
250 helium bed atomic piles on the coastlines, feeding the electrical grid, cracking seawater into hydrogen, and powering the CATALYTIC capture of CARBON.
gee, do you think ANY current power station OWNER wants to hear this?????
Its best way to growing original tree 🌲 not artificially tree.
Is artificially tree making oxygen?
Seriously, that same thought was like instantly in my head. Duh! CO2 + earth + sun + water + seeds = Trees...Brilliant and it's FREE!!!!!!
Nice thought, but unfortunately trees are not "strong" enough to solve this problem. We would need 3x time our earth just of forest to absorb the co2 that is produced...
Humans are the dumbest creatures on the planet, this guy doing the TED talk is a shining example of the state of humanities retardation... And he’s supposed to be one of our finest!?!? 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Jonathan Boue Who told you that? One of these science guys?? You might as well say “That’s not true because in the bible” ... Yeah that’s the level of dumbness these scientists are on today 🤦♀️
Yes you can make Oxygen with it.
Just plant trees,,,co2 is plant food
Amazon burned down and trees are not enough to stop carbon emissions
It's not enough
@@Jasonr- Amazon burns every year - planting trees can't hurt. And carbon might not be bad btw.
@@Chronic2112 I meant that trees cannot compensate for all the carbon emissions we are producing
@@Chronic2112 Carbon is not a poison, it is plant food, people exhale 40,000ppm every time:
Time lapse of 2 plants growing and stats:
czcams.com/video/P2qVNK6zFgE/video.html
This guy makes a couple of interesting and potentially faulty assumptions.
First is that we can quarry enough limestone to feed the process. How do extraction and transport alter the usage and net carbon reduction?
He assumes that human industry can consume all the lime byproduct produced. Or if it can't we can dump the rest in the ocean, which is another huge-scale transportation project. What if we can't dump our excess lime in the ocean?
Nuclear power produces zero emissions and plenty of heat that could be used to break down limestone for lime. Especially if you are talking about a molten salt nuclear power plant.
John Trauger
Nuclear power is at best carbon neural AFTER 40 -60 years ! Then there is waste issue and accidents too!
BIG NON-STARTER!
Space based solar power !
Yessir
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE MSRs and the world needs to switch the small modular nuclear asap, but natural gas can be deployed quickly. I think his proposal is an interesting idea
He did say this was not the only way and other methods combined were necessay
@@thalesnemo2841 Why SPACE based? How about just LAND BASED solar power, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE? And WINDFARMS as MUCH AS POSSIBLE?
Let's tear down all those ugly disgusting churches & fast food restaurants: put solar farms and windfarms THERE.
During the period 1645-1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550. If this happens again, as it seems to be the case now, we will have been lucky that the earth has warmed up before.
First we need to stop the heating before it releases the methane from the permafrost and oceans which will lead to massive warming. Then if we need to warm the world or cool it down we know better what to do.
In England like elsewhere there are natural floodplains when the floodplains flood some blame global warming that is the idiocy of some climate change activists. Personaly I blame the planing consent.
My car runs on methane. I think we should filter things to keep them balanced. Like a filter for a fishtank, except for the air
Plant florests!
yes!
Won't be enough time and space.
Nope. Rampant industrialization, population growth and environmental disregard is the main issue. You can't solve the problem without explicitly reducing civilization's environmental impact. This, however, goes against everything we are currently focusing on doing. Our mode of existence is founded on notions of growth, expansion and exploration, all in the guise of increasing "human quality of life".
Our civilization's current plan is to devour everything and spit out products for humans. CO2 scrubbers don't replace the plants we destroyed, because those plants do much more than extract CO2, they support immense ecosystems we all rely on to survive.
It's terrifying how we humans think the solution to every problem we create is doing exactly more of the same thing we've always done.
Don't worry, the AI revolution will make human life unimportant and more trouble than that old species is worth.
That won't be sufficient. Every scenario to remain under +2° C temperature increase includes the necessity to not merely stop Co2 emissions, but to also take Co2 out of the atmosphere.
1ucasvb what problem are you attempting to solve? Go live in a cave and eat grass, problem solved.
1ucasvb good god your brainwashed
In my part of the world, which used to be one of the largest manufacturing spots in the world. The water is cleaner, more animal diversity, more forest than 40 years ago.
your expressions deserve deep appreciation. i am happy to learn that co2 can be extracted from air and can be made into something that can used in industries.
no it don't.
CO2 is already used in the most important industries on Earth: Food production, transportation of it, preparation of it, all restaurants, grocery stores, etc. etc. etc.
In 2012 Principia Scientific International (PSI) peer-reviewed and published my paper
"Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" based on work
by Prof Claes Johnson and relating to the resonating process whereby radiation
from the atmosphere is pseudo scattered by the warmer surface and not
thermalised. If it were then there would be a decrease in entropy and so
we can deduce that the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.
I subsequently proved Joseph Postma's paper on PSI about the "Model Atmosphere" to
be riddled with errors in its attempt to claim that all we needed was solar
radiation to the surface in order to explain observed temperatures. It's easy
to understand why that is not the case because the Moon's surface receives
about twice as much solar radiation and does not simultaneously lose energy
also by evaporation, conduction and convection as does Earth's surface. The
average temperature of the Moon's surface is below zero Celsius.
In 2013 after considerable research and thought I explained what does happen on all planets
and moons with atmospheres in my paper "Planetary Core and Surface
Temperatures."
It will probably take another decade before the truth in that paper is widely known.
Visit whyitsnotco2.com and watch my videos.
As it stands now, co2 is greening the earth. One of the best documentaries I've seen on regenerative farming also claims it can make the earth a garden of eden . The documentary is called "Kiss the Ground" and is available on netflix.
This guy is saving the world as far as the clapping seals know.
WE GET OXYGEN AND HYGDROGEN FROM WATER CARBON DIOXIDE FROM PLANTSIF THATS THE CASE WE AV TO MANY PLANTS TREES AND OTHER PLANTS SO DO WE AV TO CUT DOWN MORE TREES TO REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE
This discussion is based on a questionable claim that CO2 is mostly responsible for heating the atmosphere which many other scientists claim is incorrect. Removing CO2 from the air is bad news for plants especially since CO2 is very low overall compared to long periods of time.
The climate is always changing and we need to focus on dealing with that. Adaptation is the key word.
Bang on.
I agree Sir.
so how do we adapt proffessor
We dont: it will be forced upon us. Humanity is just to stupid and greedy.
removing co2 from the air will kill everything, co2 is plant food, they make our o2.
Time lapse of 2 plants growing and stats:
czcams.com/video/P2qVNK6zFgE/video.html
I must admit I haven't heard this particular idea before. There are several things to say:
1. Well, at least he isn't talking about shooting sulfates into the stratosphere, or dumping iron filings in the ocean.
2. A quick calculation of the amount of excess CO2 in the air tells me there are on the order of half a trillion tonnes of excess CO2 that would need to be removed from the air, assuming we start from a peak of 450 ppm (I'm thinking this will happen about 20 years from now) and go down to 350 ppm. But as you do that, oceans also contain a comparable amount of excess CO2, which they will liberate back to the air as its excess CO2 is removed, so really you need to remove about one trillion tonnes in all.
3. The good news: no need to dump all that lime in the oceans, because the ocean acidification will go away on its own. Well, that's a relief, as it would take gargantuan amounts of limestone to do all that. It would be a new environmental problem in its own right.
4. Oh, wait, you break down all that limestone and liberate the CO2. For what, if you're not dumping it in the ocean? (And indeed, you'd better not: See point 2.) So what's the point of processing all that limestone? (We make some concrete now, so maybe this could be the way to do that, going forward?)
4. Suppose, instead of lime, which it turns out we don't need after all, we use artificial trees to extract CO2. Is there enough natural gas even available to generate waste heat from fuel cells and extract the CO2 from artificial trees? (That is, to drive their basic functioning.)
5. What about fugitive methane emissions?
6. What about the environmental impacts of natural gas, especially with fracking?
7. Fuel cells are expensive, although I suppose if they were scaled up enough, they might get cheap.
Altogether, this seems like an expensive, convoluted, and VERY centralized power generation system.
I have an alternative. Scale up solar by a couple orders of magnitude, with various ways of handling its intermittency. (There are a whole bunch of very reasonable options.) Once you have scaled it up and driven the cost down to where it's not just cheap, as it has become now, but DIRT CHEAP, start using it to scrub CO2 with artificial trees. (I like real trees, but you know what? They BURN. Problematical in the long run. They also need care in various ways that artificial trees don't.) Don't do much scrubbing UNTIL you have converted to renewables. Otherwise, you're helping to prolong dependence on fossil fuels.
Scrubbing could be done with solar electricity (at night, maybe with wind, hydro, or geothermal), or in some cases the scrubbing could use waste heat from various sources, such as solar thermal. (Solar PV generates waste heat, too, but you can't let it concentrate to a useful level, or the PV performance deteriorates.)
After a while, you're done sucking CO2 (a one-time project), and you now have a clean system providing very cheap energy, which, unlike natural gas, will not run out.
When you lower carbon dioxide below 150 ppm plants die followed by us. Plants grow best at 2000 ppm.
@@donaldevanshennings7732 Talk some sense. Geezz. No one is talking about 150 ppm. I'd like to put you on a planet where you could have your 2000 ppm.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 so when you get to 350 ppm what is going to stop it dropping lower as vegetation and oceans keep soaking it up. At pre industrial timed we got down to 180 ppm. The industrial revolution came just in time.
@@donaldevanshennings7732 O. M. F. G. I'm not even going to try to straighten that out. Where did you hear that? Or did you just make it up yourself?
Where can I find more information about this idea?
Such as cost to build and run one of these?
How much CO2 does it get rid of per year?
How much electricity is it producing per year?
What are all the theoretical numbers?
Did u get ur answers ?
2m47s HUGE gap: HOW do you MAGICALLY "store CO2 underground"?
you take the containers and store them.. does that sound like a technologically impossible mission to you??
Good luck. Asia is continuing to build coal powered electricity generation plants.
Medicine can be a real challenge. You need a medication to reduce swelling, but the side effect created becomes another problem. You need another medication to mitigate the side effect.
The same applies to reducing carbon dioxide. The politicians who fund this climate change frenzy are extremely simple minded. Ecologists and scientists who think rationally realize that you change one factor, the whole world will respond-not just a lowering of temperature. So we lower the temperature by 1.5°C but then the food production drops dramatically. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. So essentially you need to decide whether you want to eat or whether the sea level will rise (it hadn't done so significantly for the past 20 years).
Thank you Quick Fix time line is to long no way of going back!!
How about calling natural gas an organic gas for more convincing image of beneficence?
Call it pristine pure Organic CO2 as opposed to regular dirty CO2polluting the planet. TED at its best.
When will Americans understand that climate change isn't about politics but about scientific evidences ?
I don't understand where so many fools saying climate change is fake come from. Can't they observe their surroundings. I can see that rains have become unpredictable, summers are extremely hot, and winters are not cold enough. Why don't people OBSERVE?
You would need to provide them with basic education. They can't even learn basic elementary algebra. Imagine teaching the average Murikkkan Darwin's theory of evolution and the science of green house gasses and climate change!!! Those are nearly impossible facts to grasp unless people are committed to being informed. For Murikkkans Biblical Creationism is all they care to learn about, even if it is a lie as fat as the belly they lazily carry around.
Climate change is about money. This speaker is the CEO of a corporation he founded to rake in off profits over the climate change hysteria. He also holds two patents that he hopes to profit from.
A preached apocalypse and bias computer models is not evidence incase that's what you're referring to.
Because it's not.
Imagine having a machine that could use carbon dioxide and solar energy to create a building material... oh wait, we do, they're called trees.
This is not about climate change. It is about controlling industrial activities based on social considerations.
When did climate change start?......yes indeed....when the Earth started to be a planet!!
Yep. And its lead to 4 mass extinctions. We are the only animals that can come up with solutions to avoid mass extinction
When do cells begin to die? ......yes indeed....when you were born. So next time you get a gash, don't treat it.
@Frederick Röders How fast is it accelerating against how it normally does?
When crazy scientists experiment with nature, playing for God, that always goes wrong. Just like the secret geo engineering programs nobody believes is going on world wide. Water vapor. pff yes sure. And now co2 is poisining us. yes sure. Dont you see they try to kill us while you are supporting it? Are you really that stupid?
@@shirshakbt the CO2 levels have been up to 2000 ppm naturally and as a result of cataclysm change. But still life and the planet went on. The multiple asteroid impacts and flood basalts could only set life back not stop it. The planets climate is too resilient to let 100ppm or a couple of degrees destroy it.
Btw during the time of the dinosaurs which had co2 up 1000ppm Egypt was green with plant life. The Shahar was a jungle. And the northern and southern regions barely got cold during winter.
it's weird that there are way more likes than dislikes but the comment section is complete opposite
Bots only know how to comment, not like or dislike.
CZcams manipulates the statistics to get the output they want, just like the scientists that fudge the weather reports.
Josef K, Google and youtube have already admitted to modifying their search results and putting info they don't want you to have into a memory hole. I have see comments being removed and made unavailable. There are many user reports on this as well this includes the stats as well.
Veritas - hidden camera interview with major media sources: czcams.com/video/r0c1Bph1jrQ/video.html
Newsbud - Google info modification: czcams.com/video/WQkVoATf4Og/video.html
CorbertReport - Climate Change adjustments: czcams.com/video/tlnwhcO5NC0/video.html
I just did a search with youtube on "global warming" and the search results were all pro mainstream concepts. The only way I got an alternate point of view is if I search for people I already knew of.
I did a search with google for "white American scientists" click on images and tell me what you find!
These organizations are manipulating data like you wouldn't believe.
"MY IMAGINATION IS THE ONLY REALITY THAT EXISTS!!!"
"We generate more CO2 but it's really pure CO2 that we can store." What could go wrong? Seems like a good way to keep growing so let's try it. Add it to all the other ways of generating power.
Concrete companies have to compete with China for lime. I don't know how governments will react to seeing a major part of new construction going into the sea
Oh my god these comments are stupid they aren’t saying lets remove all the CO2 just a healthy amount seriously this is a great idea
Funnylemon 16 yeah but too late. Climate is already changing and the vicious circle has begun !
Finally someone who has a bloody brain
durrr but if you remove the CO2 the plants will die! durrrrr
Sorry I just got back from a cow farm, the CO2 levels were higher than 27 semi trucks revving the engine into my face! Let me take a clean breath and fix my brain.....
...or I guess we could take out just enough so the temperature stays the same as it is now for every year and my monkey brain doesn't overheat durrr BANANA BANANA
+Mlle Goug So you're just going to let the WORST offenders (cuckservatives who have ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTED action to end FF addiction and to massively build sustainable energy & transportation systems) go UNPUNISHED?
Did i say that ? No, I juste said it's too late. The only thing we can do to stop it it's to stop eating meat, to stop the increase of the population, to stop all transports...etc. A little machine to destroy CO2 omg what a revolution ! And next to this, we gonna continue destroying forest, building everywhere, becoming more and more stupide and living more and more sick. So yes i'm totally pessimistic about this :)
where would the energy source to power these come from?
Where will the limestone come from? Mining? Moving limestone around in vast quantities seems like a high carbon activity. However, we should pursue all avenues.
Well then any process that generate heat can break down limestone....
Carbon dioxide is not a poison; on the contrary, all life on this planet depends on it. The idea that we would deliberately reduce it is chilling. The current higher levels have led to a greening of the planet and higher crop yields.
You two have been utterly brainwashed by selective news viewing, haven't you?
@@shirshakbt On the contrary. I rarely watch the news and hardly ever read a newspaper. I prefer to go to the original material and draw my own conclusions rather than rely on secondary sources. Why should I outsource the job of information gathering to journalists and editors when I can by-pass them and avoid their biases? I look for the evidence rather than the interpretation. My statement about the greening of the planet stands. It's supported by empirical evidence.
@@shirshakbt Have you ever heard of the psychological phenomenon of projection? I think you should look into it.
CO2 + heat = plants
Duh 😂
The added heat creates an unstable climate which makes disasters such as hurricanes more common. Hurricanes and other extreme weather is harmful for plant life due to removing layers of top soil, and causing poor conditions for plants because of an unnatural climate. In addition to this plants need more than CO2 to survive, they need water; made too scarce or extreme by droughts and storms, and nutrients from the soil that are washed away in major storms, so as with most things, it is never as simple as "CO2 + heat = plants" it's almost as if leading Biological and Earth scientists have a better understanding of their fields than you do.
Nice video. Thank you very much
How little CO2 do they want in the atmosphere. All they say is, that there is too much.
What is the ideal number then?
The ideal numbers are where green plants and trees will not grow anymore, then the world will be totally captive audience for having to buy food from them that is made from genetically manipulated plants that breathe oxygen.
We’ll all be eating Soylent Red - the food made without carbon dioxide.
You won’t be able to grow your own, everything else will be dead.
"conduct experiments on the planet"... I don't think I like that idea.
We've already been doing that for 200 years. That ship has sailed.
We don't care
He should do something useful with his life. Artificial trees... 🤣
I can't see this method being economically competitive. Therefore I can't see it happening.
It will cost less than the Iraq War. That was a complete waste.
@Kent Horvath I do. According to several estimates, the cost to absorb all the preindustrial CO2 from the air will be between $3-5 trillion using this technology. That is the cost of the War on Terror - to date. It's also much less than we've spent on stimulus packages this year.
What is ultimately responsible for the fact that the climate is warmer for me is not yet sufficiently investigated.
The climate is a non-linear chaotic system that is influenced by many factors (solar activity, volcanic eruptions, geomagnetic field, population growth, deforestation, clouds, emissions and more).
The temperature may correlate with the CO2 content, but due to the complexity, does not see a causal relationship that is scientifically proven.
There are some weather and climate models with which one tries to make predictions. These have proved to be too buggy in the past.
There is a general consensus, it is getting warmer.
Man certainly has a part in it.
How can we humans stop climate change if we do not even know how everything works together?
The problems are already starting to predict the weather reliably for the next 4-5 days. How would you like to do that for the climate over the next 20-30-50 years?
I present the following theory:
Yes, man is to blame for global warming! Only by his mere presence.
A normal person gives off well 120W as waste heat to the environment. So let's take 100W, it easier to calculate .
There are 7 billion people on earth. Makes a power output in the form of heat of 700GigaWatt.
These are 500 DWR Isar / Ohu2 nuclear power plants that only produce waste heat.
The population has skyrocketed in recent decades, such as global warming.
So much for my theory.
Sometimes the physics has a simple solution for what seems a complex problem. This often happens when energy is concerned. In this case, there is a simple physical model that does pretty much prove the nature of the problem.
The Earth is in orbit around the sun in the vacuum of space. The main energy traveling through this space is the solar radiation from the sun. Because the sun is hot, this energy is concentrated in the visible portion of the electro-magnetic wave frequency. We see it in the rainbow of colors.
The earth is also an emitter of electro-magnetic energy, but because it is not so hot, the bandwidth is about 10 times lower. We don't see it. If you are near a hot object, you can feel this heat radiation. If you are near a cold object, you can feel your loss of heat to the object.
So the simple explanation of the greenhouse gas effect is that the gas, mainly CO2, interrupts the heat radiation leaving the earth to space. Meanwhile the main gases of Nitrogen, and Oxygen, are transparant to both the visible radiation, and the heat radiation.
So, how does the CO2 molecules do this trick? It is because of their structure O-C-O, they can vibrate like mass-spring-mass-spring-mass. Because they are small, the vibration frequency of CO2 is right in the middle of the Earth's heat spectrum. A photon of heat, hits a molecule of CO2, and the photon is absorbed, while the molecule jumps in vibrational energy. Later, the molecule emits the photon in some random direction, half of the time with an upward component, and half of the time with a downward component. Thus the CO2 molecules scatter a portion of the escaping heat in random directions, reducing it's escape to space. Seen from space, the CO2 frequency is seen only at the top of the atmosphere. When a gas pressure drops, the temperature drops also. At the earth's surface, the air temperature is hotter, than high in the atmosphere. Thus the CO2 heat frequency is reduced as seen from outer space.
About 70% of the sun's radiation heats the earth. About 30% is reflected to space. So the energy entering the earth is about 70% of the solar intensity in space times the cross sectional area of the earth. The earth's heat radiation leaves from the entire surface, which is 4 times the cross sectional area. The earth heats up when the solar energy absorbed is greater than the heat radiation leaving.
It would be wrong to say that is all there is to the story, because water vapor is present in large amounts in the atmosphere, and it is also a green house gas. But, we can't do much about water vapor directly, because 70% of the surface is covered by oceans. And, as water vapor rises, it cools down, forms clouds, and rains. So water vapor is not a control variable, but a reaction variable. CO2 can heat the earth, and water vapor can increase the greenhouse effect due to the warming.
How much does it cost to build and operate the fuel cell system described?
I’d like to know too
What's wrong with CO2?? Might as well remove the Oxygen while you're at it.
Majority needs to pay the attention to keep the world the way it meant to be...
Solid arguments from all here! I agree you ALL!
I like your opinions!
I'm with you guys! !!
The good thing about science is: if a scientific comes and tells you that a process has an overall negative emission of CO2 gases, you don’t need to trust blindly, you can actually go ahead and try it out on your own... but you need to have the guts to challenge your own beliefs of course 🤔
This guy was given the the conclusion to an argument and then told to put together evidence supporting it. The proverbial horse before the cart.
Science has already proven him to have a argument based on a false conclusion.
He stated this in 2017. Today is 2019... where are these creations you were working on?
the creaton he has been working on is called "private Villa right next to the Ocean"
Who needs co2!? Oh, every plant relying on photosynthesis...
Not this much CO2, or it wouldn’t be accumulating in the afternoon atmosphere.
No one is saying remove all CO2 ever. How did you even come to that conclusion?
@@BlahstarRecords we hardly have any co2 in our atmosphere at the moment. We have 21% oxygen, and 0.04% co2.
It is my understanding that at present the earth is much greener plant-wise than it was 50 years ago.
Plants that get more co2 require much less water.
A world with less carbon dioxide will require much more fresh water
It's really interesting as an idea. And the climate changing is our matter us all. I'm totally in as we should all be. But I just want to know how far can this program be effective?
great so not only we have deforestation, we have no more CO2 for Trees. Hence no more O2. Is this what this video is demonstrating? I suppose he just hinted it, it is for economic purposes. Will this mean we will have to pay for O2?
We'd be in big trouble without C02.
Too much or too little can lead to horrible climates for life
Co2 levels have apparently been much higher in the past, than they are now
@nom deplumeone I bow to you superior knowledge and intellect.
The planet has always been warming up, if it wasn't we wouldn't be here. As the Earth would still be under a mile of ice. Eventually the planet will be devoid of all life, and it will burn up......Guess what, there's nothing whatsoever we can do about it.
@@tectorama oh ye of little faith. If we dont kill ourselves, with climate change, nuclear weapons, or AI, one day we will gather the materials, asteroids, needed to build a planet and throw it into orbit around the sun. Or just move the earth further from the sun
one serious problem no CO2 no trees. Once his plan begins to work plant growth will slow. Slow growth slow CO2 removal. Being able to talk pretty does not mean the idea is good.
Do you have a better idea? Unless you’re a denialist.
I don't have to deny anything. The science here is corrupt and senseless. One of the lefts undeniable facts is that CO2 warms the earth which warms the Oceans, right? Warmer Oceans become acidic, oh no. But adding CO2 to water makes it acidic. ?? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid) Cold water holds more CO2 so warmer Oceans give off CO2, but that's backwards. Well do this experiment at home. *! WARNING DON'T DO THIS !* Put a un-opened beer in a pot of boiling water, stand away and wait or (this is safer) run a un-opened beer under hot water from the tap. When the beer is very warm almost hot to the touch, oh don't shake it, OPEN IT. Don't forget your eye protection. You could do this with a Pepsi too.
Do you have a better idea? Oh yeah, stop lying about crap you don't know about and learn something about chemistry and engineering.
If the planet is warming for whatever reason WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP IT! Our resources should be used to learn how to live safely in a warmer house. History says the planet will get warming even if all human and cow farts are eliminated. The cleaner the air the more heat hits the surface, that include the Oceans.
I have lived through the coming overpopulation(The Population Bomb), the coming Ice Age and remember the propaganda. Here is an idea work on your memory skills.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
@@squamish4244 it is not denial, it is understanding that much of the climate alarmist methodology is flawed. I do believe that there are climate scientists that are performing disciplined, good faith studies. They are not the ones telling us we need to remove trillions of tons of co2 from the atmosphere. There is more, easily understood, information available that currently co2 in the atmosphere is on the low side not the high side. By low I mean end of life on earth low. Not enough co2 plants starve. Plants starve everything starves.
You do not have to believe me. You can look up minimum concentration of co2 for plant life.
Other problems with climate alarm legitimacy.
No baseline climate.
No accurate way of sampling volcanic gasses. With that said, to few volcanic source samples. So cannot accurately know the source of atmospheric co2.
Sea level rise that is due to shifting of the earths crust. Crustal rebound.
Surface temperature stations located in urban heat sinks.
Computer models that ignore water vapor.
Computer models that use a fixed solar output.
The emphasis on temperature when the issue is energy transfer.
All the carbon that is released when burning fossil fuels was freely available in the atmosphere at some time in the past. By the way, fossil fuel is used because of its high energy content. Pound for pound it is hard to beat gasoline as a fuel.
There were vineyards in Greenland.
And on and on.
Lies about upcoming catastrophe will not get me to change my behavior. Showing me how to be a good steward of my surroundings will.
No.
Decades ago, climate scientists were on the fringe struggling to get their opinions heard and denialists were mainstream. Now, the weight of evidence and actual climate change has finally made climate scientists mainstream, but the denialists have flipped the script and pretend that they have always been the brave minority.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
@@squamish4244 co2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. It barely affects climate change. No Co2, no Life on earth. This is stupid.
It's nice that there is hope, but this bloke could have added another five minutes with a few more details, such as the carbon footprint of obtaining the methane and mining the limestone for this process.
Carbon capture is a most hazardous issue. Let's not forget plants optimum CO2 level is 2000/Million. At 200 all surface plantlife dies.
The IPCC has determined that the most effective means of "carbon scrubbing" is to plant trees. Indeed it's self moderating as plantlife slows as CO2 diminishes. Iron fertilization in the ocean may have an even greater effect: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
*Let's take all the CO2 and PUSH IT somewhere else!*
Joyo
Where ? Oh it took millions of years for the Earth to it and we dug it out and burnt it in about 200 years !
We move it to mars
@@thalesnemo2841 you're wrong. CO2 levels have been occelating in regular, roughly 100K year cycles as far back as 500,000 years ago. During the Ordovician Ice Age, 450 million years ago, CO2 levels were 8 times higher than they are today. And there were no pesky humans and their cars.
If you study the Vostok Ice Core data, you will see that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature by about 800 years. This means temps come first, CO2 comes 2nd. And the reason for this is simple. Warm oceans out gas CO2 and cold oceans absorb more CO2. In other words, CO2 does not drive climate change. CO2 follows climate change.
@@Throwaway-kg7ft why? Mars has an atmosphere that is 97% CO2. By the collective geniuses around here, Mars should be on fire right now instead of -80F.
@@thalesnemo2841 r/woosh
Thank you... now everyone clap and do nothing.
That's why it's called a 'talk' :)
@@namnack interesting:)
No, instead clap and be thankful that dangerously scarce CO2 is edging toward normal levels at 2,300 ppm. Be thankful that we've had some meager warming in this ongoing Ice Age -- and the most prosperous period in human history!!! So, the idiots want a return to poverty and death. Study some science!!! Or read my book, *_Climate Basics: Nothing to Fear._* It could help.
Can anyone tell me how much the variance in temperature change can be explained by CO2?
No. The climate system is too complex and dynamic to determine the exact effect of one variable. They can only run computer models and most of those are less than 50% reliable. The average increase is in the order of magnitude of 0.1°C in around a decade for the 20th century. Caused by dozens of sources CO2 being one. A small and indirect one.
Or you could bottle that Co2 and sell it to commercial greenhouses to release into the greenhouse to feed the plants.
I think it would be better if all human beings cooperate and plant a trees everywhere. If you still want to survive and preserve the life of the humanity then do something as a person.
yes! deep roots and living soil. you are right!
Karim Hassan Maybe. It will almost certainly take extreme feats to reverse.
@Karim Hassan thats not necessary, we are currently below the optimal global average temperature
45 sec on the tech, the good part, the part we learn off. All the remaining is blabla. politics or ethics, that we have already heard a thousand times. doesn't look like TED. But thanks fo the idea of lime stuff. Lacks figures though.
Maybe for someone else it's the first time.. better more than less in this case
People in the comments don’t seem to realize that artificial trees are more efficient and take up less space than regular ones.
People think we can take every farmland and plant trees around the whole world.
There is a great TED talk about artificial forests that take up little land in comparison to the service they offer.
My concern is the leaking of too much of the natural gas into the atmosphere during the mining process. Some suggest that this waste is often upwards of 5-10% which is akin to filling a bathtub with the bathplug out. Must be more tightly regulated with fines/penalties for careless release levels.
All excellent ideas, forgoing global dimming and thermal inertia, that is.
Yes we can, by planting trees.
It's not enough
@@BlahstarRecords plant 10 trillion trees that will be enough. You might even get an ice age at some point.
At least he didn't say electric cars
It does help
Why not just simply remove some water vapor from air? Water vapor has much more greenhouse effects and it is much easier to collect and it is easier to store, just running water.
What about reusing the generated pure carbon dioxide as an additional generator of electricity, is that possible? If it is, it would create astonishing amounts of electricity.
Ok but there's greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide ??
nah, too compilacted for the stupid masses, lets frame CO2 as the big bad, that'll do it
Short answer. NO.
Saved you 9 minutes.
@ Because your time should be important
I feel like people complicate this. Just stop deforestation and emit more CO2 for plants to feed off. Simple as that. Count on my word!🇷🇼
What about the co2 emissions for extracting and transporting natural gas? Is that
Ok sounds good.
This is why I believe in advancement of science much more than some stupid government protocol and forced trade deal.
Yes science!!
The arrogance of ignorance demonstrated throughout this comment section is astounding.
Some are concerned that the speaker in the video plans to suck out all of the CO2 in the atmosphere thereby depriving plants of their "food"!
Some are pointing out that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would need to be increased by many magnitudes of their current levels before it becomes "toxic"!
Others argue that methane, being a more potent greenhouse gas, is of more concern than CO2 apparently oblivious to the disproportion between the levels of the two emissions.
Some cite their gut feelings as trumping the science.
Then there are the ones who are convinced anthropogenic climate change is a scam perpetrated to control the masses or is attributable to an elite cabal actually engineering it to wipe out the masses or variations on such themes.
Presumably these people sleep well in their beds at night after posting this stuff pointing out the errors of our ways.
The arrogant bliss of ignorance of the nightmare unfolding before our very eyes.
bakedbean37 yet you have no care in the world? If you don't live for something, you will die for nothing.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I care deeply for the future we are bequeathing our children and the environment they will have to live in.
Challenging destructive ignorance based complacency seems a reasonable cause wouldn't you agree?
Considering life on earth has thrived at over 4000PPM atmospheric CO2 this entire video is pointless. More CO2 is better for life, the fastest way to reduce the amount of life on earth is decreasing temperatures and atmospheric CO2.
Cold kills many more people than heat :/
Noah S. as long as there are no Humans that may be but humans have never lived through 400ppm in History! Unless you can turn into a coldblooded reptile in the next few years I wager you will not survive it either! Increasing CO2 will clear this lot off the planet and try again this time hoping for a less Deplorable species.
If there is a negative output of C02 what happens if, hypothetically, we over due it. Or do we ourselves then purposely control the levels for the planet ourselves
I would like to see the chemistry behind this process. Reason being, breaking down limestone into lime and the using lime to absorb carbon dioxide. The lime, can at best, only absorb as much carbon dioxide as it released in the first place. Thus I don't see the purpose of this step. The only part of the process I see which could make the process carbon negative is the "other" undescribed storage method. So honestly, I am all for lowering carbon emissions, but can someone explain how this is any different from CO2 scrubbing used in current power generation plants?
Chemistry, *CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2,* use waste heat to make lime, CaO, from limestone, CaCO3, capture the pure CO2 also produced and pump it underground into a saline aquafer. Use the CaO to capture CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) which produces CaCO3. Repeat this process which allows the burning of natural gas (methane, CH4) with carbon capture and sequestration. *Why?* We can continue to run natural gas-powered electricity generators.
*How is it different?* If we use methane pyrolysis, *CH4 -> C + 2H2,* then we can burn hydrogen, H2, and bury the carbon, C. Then we could use the CaO to remove CO2 from the air and clean up the atmosphere (instead of using it to clean up the exhaust from burning methane, *CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.* )
What is really scary about this speech is that he sounds like a rational human being. Sounds like
This man would singlehandedly kick us into the next ice age....
no he wouldn't, he would take our money and build himself a nice Villa next to the "rising" Ocean
CO2 is the food for plants.
More CO2 more phytoplankton more algae more fish
How people have been brainwashed that Co2 is bad just points to low intelligence or bad mental health!. Commercial greenhouse growers ADD extra Co2 to double growth & production. Co2 at 400ppm is too LOW. Why are people so stupid????
was legit thinking about this this morning haha
More than 4 mins of motivational speech at the end...
Couldn't we just plant more trees? More green space is usually a good thing!
Trying to remove CO2 from the air unnaturally would surely cause worse problems. We are a clever species, but not very wise. We always do things without with no regard to what will happen 100's of years down the road. The real problem is there are too many of us trying to be efficient while ignoring vital externalities, and human behavior.
It's better to replace all gas and coal plants with nuclear reactors and grow, cut, and bury forests in strip mines under clay. Letting forests grow doesn't use any resources and isolating them cuts them off from the carbon cycle.
He’s crazy! We’re so wealthy and have so few problems that we’re having to manufacture imaginary problems. Prosperous nations should be using their wealth to get water and electricity to the poor.
How about just plant MORE trees and bamboo !!! ... but that does not benefit scammers ?
You can do that. We would have to plant many billions of trees...
how me the numbers !!! World has this 1 desert just waiting to be planted !!!
S Cin They would probably fit into all the land available from all the clear cutting of forests and jungles.
mba2ceo you’re saying we should plant trees in the desert? LOL that will work great. Lots of water out there, perfect for growing trees. There’s a reason trees grow where they do and where they don’t
- or hemp !! I disagree with the scam remark, that said, growing more plants (and stop cutting down the existin in a foolish manner) would certainly help. - think about the LUNACY of producing ethanol to replace some fossil fuels. (EU plan !!!) Which would be fine it the ethanol would be produced in the rich countries (and with not too much fertilzers etc.).
Instead the desperately needed trees in the rainforests are cut down, the ecosystems are destroyed.
or "teak" plantations in Asia. That wood does not have the quality of natural teak anyway.
In the temperate climate zone it is easy to regrow trees. Not in the rain forests or in the colder areas (Russia, Canad).
In the rain forests the high rainfall wahses out the nutrients. These ecosystems are HIGHLY specialized, and diversified, and comples - that is the way of nature to cope with the low nutrient situation. There is a reason the Amazon - very low in nutrients - is the most complex, diverse ecosystem in the world.
Cutting down the trees to get wood for throw away furniture, to grow soy beans, for mining, for cattle. Or for palm oil plantations in Asia - it is completely destructive.
Natural forests in the moderate climate zone with enough but not too much rain can recover. (and while these ecosystems are also beautiful and stable they cannot even closely compete with the complexity of the rainforests. They don't need that diversity to function and be stable).
In those areas one can even have monocultures (fir plantations). Not ideal, but in those areas it is not too devastating.
And you can TAKE OUT some of the organic matter (the wood of the trees) w/o damaging the system.
The soil is much richer. No torrential rain on a regular base. There is a spongy, absorbant layer of soil that does not exist in the Amazon - it would be washed away - so less is washed away.
The abrasion of minerals during the ice ages or volcanic and other tectonic events added some nutrients.
Growing plants for ethanol not in corrupt developing countries but in the rich countries is a question of costs. I would curb the scheme alltogether.
We need to produce more organic meat or oils for the food industry at home - that has more impact than the ethanol substitution scheme.
I think the message he is carrying is very important and the concept of The Origen Power Process is a interesting solution, but what I think is most important about about this concept ist where to store all that Co2. Germany had some projects that seemed viable, but the population was against it.
You mean ocean fertilization to sink carbon to the deep ocean as marine snow?
Or you know, plant more trees. That might help.
CO2 does not drive temperature, it trails temperature rise by 800 years. Ice core data. Every living thing on Earth is carbon based, without it we die. Almost everybody overlooks the inconvenience that from 1940 to 1980 when the human production of CO2 increased the most, global temperatures went down. After 1998 the global temperatures stopped increasing while CO2 levels continued to increase in contradiction to their hypothesis.
"Can we stop climate change by removing CO2 from the air?" Yes of course we can Tim. Get right on that and get back to the rest of us quarterly with your quarterly progress reports.
Update: Tim and everyone else on the planet died when crops didn't grow because the lack of CO2.
Exactly my thoughts. He’s nothing but a paid shill for the CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS. He’s been told to find answers to a foregone conclusion and being paid very well for it.
Umm wouldn’t that make the earth the ice ball. Since CO2 levels dropped the earth gets cold.
Planting trees is pointless if the mountain beetles keep feeding on phylum and killing the trees drying them out then burning down entirely forests. We can't plant at a fast enough rate. 40 million trees would need to be planted every day to cover the co2 emissions for just the usa. Thunder foot has a video about this honest the ocean is the best carbon absorber we have converting most into carbonic acid and eventually into bicarbonate particles that get buried at the bottom of the ocean. Best solution i can think of is switching to a form of kinetic/dams/generator / superheated steam using geothermal/thermoelectric generator pipes /steam turbines in a maxed out energy configuration/ redox reaction converting then low pressure water vapour into hydrogen /fusion into maximum mega electron volts of 14/ toss in a few platinum catalists and all people living in cities with the density of the walled city and you have the plot for the matrix. Matrix is amazing BTW
Unfortunately, the statements provided by this talk are all jibberish.
"To Fight Global Warming, We need more Taxes, We need bigger government" - That's where the conversation end
Jon More to the point. Would you rather give up money or give up living. That's the question nature is asking.
@@willreames9600 Set the example for the rest of us!
In other words: we need fascism
To address the problem presented, NO, co2 levels can not be significantly reduced by curbing the human factor. Consider green house gases (aka) co2, emitted by volcanoes, forest fires, melting ice, natural evaporation of the ocean, and heat increase from the sun. Humans contribute about 3-5% of the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere according to NASA and NOAA. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that air pollution needs to be addressed . But, blaming humans for the increase isn't good science.
Isn't this just carbon capture and storage - this has been around for years, but governments don't want to invest in new power plants.
probably wants to spray the upper atmosphere with aerosols to huh?????
together we can stop global warming
sleep in an airtight bed
inventing it right now. im gna be rich!!!
First we need the biggest carbon emitters to do more than plant a few trees to counter their footprint.
Commercial production and use of bio char is a better option. It is also Carbon negative while boosting soil productivity for eons.