The Volcanic Eruption That Wiped Out 95% Of Life On Earth | Catastrophe
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2024
- 250 million years ago Earth had one mass continent known as Pangea - a lush oasis swarming with life forms distinct to those that exist today. Then in almost the blink of a geological eye everything changed. Life itself was almost completely wiped out. But what was responsible for the biggest extinction event in the history of the planet? However, now scientists believe they have solved the biggest murder mystery of all time.
In this truly spectacular documentary series, we go on a journey through the history of natural disasters. We'll be investigating from the planet's beginnings to the present, putting a new perspective on our existence and suggesting that we are the product of catastrophe. For each disaster led to another leap forward on the evolutionary trail form single celled bacteria to humankind itself. - Věda a technologie
If you took out all the repeated lines there would be a program of about 12 minutes.
Gotta pad the time
Then take out the 30 times he uses the term "climate change" & you're down to 10 minutes.
It is a lie anyways. This is a planet of LIARS.
Thank you for the heads up.
Look at the length. Exactly 48:00. This video screams "MADE FOR TV!!!"
No science was harmed in the making of this video
Except 95% of all life..... no modern animals.
So far, we have spent $4 trillion to slow climate change,without noticeable results. It's estimated to cost $150 trillion to tackle the whole problem, but no government involved program ever is completed within budget estimates. I'm not optmistic that human nature will be universally altered to evaluate, plan and execute well. At the present, we are not even undertaking the easy remedies.
@@leebiggs1685don't worry, humanity is not so powerful like Siberian trap.
No 💩, Sherlock! 🇨🇦🖖🏻🇨🇦
and little science revealed... 😅🤣😂
Earth will survive, perhaps we will not.
Except if a large comet cleaves the Earth in half - or a collision with a Planetoid, Black hole , rogue Sun , Gamma ray Burst , so many ways for a Planet to die .
HOPEFULLY we won't
We will all survive. But you make a good point…eco-radicals are actually very egocentric.
Forget near space objects , read Michael Pellegrino's book " The last train from Hiroshima " , if you survive the nuclear xchg, you'll die a slow and painful death, Long live the Origami Cranes " - and tell me how you feel about the Book.
@@mtb416 No ecology or egos , in the Afterlife , only Bliss.
Clarification 2.
Methane is about 150 times more potent than CO2 on a molecule by molecule basis.
The 25x figure comes from the assumption that the methane won't last as long as CO2.
BUT -- if it is replaced as fast as it breaks down then it's steady state impact is
about 150x.
Water vapor is 18X more potent than CO2 at storing heat. Plus there is a helluva lot more water vapor in the air than CO2.
@craigkdillon It isn't that simplistic. That's a laboratory measurement.. In Earth's atmosphere it's more complicated so it's necessary to use the NASA formula or use the U.S. Air Force Space Vehicles Directorate MODTRAN. The more CH4 there is the less potent it becomes, suite rapidly. The more N2O there is the less potent the CH4 is. The more CH4 there is the less potent the N2O is. Also H2O gas shares the band so mnore H2O gas makes CH4 & N2O less potent. For facts it's necessary to study rather than lazily following, Parroting, your chosen Amateur Fake Scientist, or even picking up information from scientific sites, when you are unstuidied and don't know how to use it. Simply use the MODTRAN Radiative Transfer Model Tool on the Intermet and GET IT RIGHT FOR A CHANGE (I've come across you before).
@kevinstroup "Water vapor is 18X more potent than CO2 at storing heat" shows embarrassingly brain-dead ignorance of the physics.
"there is a helluva lot more water vapor in the air than CO2" shows embarrassingly brain-dead ignorance of the physics.
The cool thing about methane is we can use it for fuel, rather than allow it to escape into the atmosphere.
I’ll never stop eating my beans!
14:52 Error. When sulphur dioxide gas mixes with water it reacts to make sulphurous NOT sulphuric acid. You need sulphur trioxide gas mixed with water to make sulphuric acid.
Sulphurous acid is a relatively weak acid compared with sulphuric acid.
In the English language, the spelling is Sulfur (...no 'ph'; the Brits use a 'ph'.)
Is there any likelihood that the ancient volcanoes produced a lot of Sulfur Trioxide gas, as well ?
So many smart people watching this Program !
@@user-ud6ui7zt3rwanker
No, there is no error.
The video states that "when [sulphur dioxide] mixes with water vapour in the atmosphere it turns into sulphuric acid". That is correct, though it does not explain how the sulphuric acid is produced. Notice that BOTH water vapour AND the atmosphere are mentioned. The sequence is as follows:
Firstly, the sulphur dioxide reacts with water to form sulphurous acid:
SO2 + H2O => H2SO3 (sulphurous acid)
the sulphurous acid is then oxidised to sulphuric acid by oxygen in the atmosphere:
2H2SO3 + O2 => 2H2SO4 (sulphuric acid)
Sulphuric acid can be made by reacting sulphur trioxide, SO3, with water, as you suggest, thus:
SO3 + H2O => H2SO4
but that is NOT what happens when SO2 mixes with water vapour in the atmosphere.
Imagine looking at Sir Tony Robinson's great "Catastrophe" series and thinking, "Not bad, but let's edit out that beloved actor and seasoned educational presenter: replacing him with a generic voiceover sapping all the life out of his lines."
You noticed that too, eh? I much prefer Tony as the narrator and will go back to watch his much better performance. AI voices are ruining great videos! Human voices are much better … 🇨🇦🖖🏻🇨🇦
@@Momcat_maggiefelinefan On the other hand, this video had scientists talking about the subject. Michael Benton, Lee Kump and Roger Smith in particular are well known scientists with numerous papers on this subject to their names.
Neither us or the earth are eternal here. 🌎✝️🇺🇸
Our universe is one of continuous change!
@@josephscarpaci3688 And yet, for most of Earth's history average global temperatures hardly changed for millions of years, and when something (usually massive volcanic eruptions that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) caused conditions to change more rapidly, mass extinctions occurred.
This is what the Geological Society of London concluded in 2020 after a major study into rates of changes during geological time:
"the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past."
See: "What the geological record tells us about our present and future climate", Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020
What they didn't mention was the breakup of the supercontinent Pangea that separated Europe from North America and Africa from South America creating the Atlantic Ocean
Yes, that's why we have some geological similarities
in South America and Africa. Wish they made a video
about the Parana and Etendeka Traps and tie effects
of the eruption that created them when the continent
were joined.
Just 120,000 years ago, the earth was in a quite warm period called the Sangamonian. Sea levels were some 25 feet higher than they are today. Then, only 100,000 years later, the earth was in the depths of an ice age, and sea levels were some 425 feet lower than they are today. Humans had nothing to do with either of those dramatic climate changes. There will likely be more dramatic climate changes in the earth's future. None of us will be alive to witness them.
So your argument is since we did not impact it then we cannot impact it now? Yes it is smaller differences but think about even small changes impact billions of humans. We did not have billions of humans then durr.
@@lydias2012
The point is, things can drastically change here on Earth all on its own. The whole "climate crisis" thing depends entirely on Humans being the only factor, when that is not true. In fact, our impact is negligible at best. Anything Humans can do is dwarfed by what nature itself can conjure up. And in our feeble attempt to "fix" things, we are just making things worse for ourselves. "Green" energy is a failure as its too expensive, not efficient, not reliable, not convenient, not recyclable (contrary to what we are told), and in many cases causes more pollution and damage to the environment just to produce than anything fossil fuel related.
@SvendleBerries have you looked at a graph of the carbon cycle since the beginning of the industrial revolution? Humans have had a massive impact.
But, yes, the planet itself is obviously waaaaay more powerful than we are.
@@melodiefrances3898
The same climate activists were talking about "global cooling" in the 1970s because there was a string of record low temperatures. Climate alarmists want people to forget about that. And everything they predicted in the 1990s never came true, despite them continuing to insist that things are getting worse. The worlds coastlines were supposed to be completely submerged by 2015. How did that turn out? Nobody noticed anything.
@@SvendleBerries You are writing nonsense. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 (and therefore temperature) caused by human activity is far faster than the changes that caused the end-Permian extinction, (or, indeed any other time in Earth's history, save for the aftermath of the end Cretaceous asteroid strike) as was mentioned in the video.
As for green energy, it is already the cheapest form of electricity generation, which is why it is increasing more rapidly than any other source of electricity generation. Moreover, when the energy source (sunlight or wind) is free, it doesn't matter that the efficiency of conversion is low.
Who's also getting fed up that whenever you watch any kind of documentary the title contains ... Shocked, Terrified or vlVisible from space?
This title doesn’t have those words, but in any event, this event in Earth’s history is well known. If anything could be called cataclysmic, it would be this one.
@@brazendesigns Exactly my point!
This is one of the very few!
@@classesanytime aha! I get it now, sorry. Indeed, if it has one of those clickbait words, or is clearly “home made” and not from an actual studio with experts interviewed, I won’t watch it. Way too much badly researched junk out there.
and 99.99% of the time - ALREADY BLOODY KNOW what they call ''shocking''.
@@rianmacdonald9454 Yeah, exactly that kind!! 😤
Interesting documentary. It could have been much better if they expanded on information rather than repeating things over and over and over again. Tell us more about these fossilized burrows and the ancestors of the creatures that dug them...how did these evolve into rodents...how did the climate feedback loop chill out and come back to equilibrium etc etc etc. So much time wasted on making a good film that could have been 1/2 hour and use the other half answering these other questions. That would have made for an excellent documentary. Just saying :)
It's called " filler " , and redundancy, designed to keep you on line for a long time , then came reply msg filler.
Amazing how people induced activity has to be introduced into everything.
Do the environmental Marxists actually try to blame human activity for volcanic eruptions?
Do they give " carbon credits " to volcanos? LOL
Yeah, especially when no humans were present 250M years ago. And who knows if in 100 years from now the interpretation of the evidence for the reason of the Permian extinction is not completely different?
I was taught that the Great Permian Extinction was caused by a lack of CO2, with levels slightly below what they are now, and all the plants died. It was the volcanos that saved us - they increased the CO2 levels enough for some plants to survive, and came along very soon AFTER the extinction event (as seen from the sedimentary records). We are now quite close to another extinction event, because plants cannot survive with low levels of CO2. We need more CO2, not less, as many top level scientists are now saying.
Sulpher dioxide (SO2) combines with water to produce Sulphurous Acid H2SO3) NOT Sulphuric Acid (H2SO4). A much weaker acid. Please be accurate.
But in the atmosphere (which was ALSO mentioned) the sulphurous acid is rapidly oxidised to sulphuric acid by oxygen. Please pay attention.
They cite the UN, seems super sketchy
He keeps repeating the same thing time after time ,could have been done in half the time
Oh God, the discussion of 'pink water' goes around and around repeating the same information over and over again until I felt dizzy and had to stop watching.
This video drags on and on
.Clarification 1.
Warming of the oceans by itself does not rob the oceans of oxygen.
Oxygen is distributed in the ocean by the AMOC.
The AMOC is powered by the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL between the poles and the tropics.
When the Earth warms, as we are seeing, the poles heat faster.
When the poles are at the same temperature as the tropics ---
the AMOC stops, and oxygen is no longer transferred to the depths.
That is called a Global Anoxic Event or GAE.
When the Earth cools, the AMOC starts again.
Last GAE is believed to have been during the PETM, or
Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Try
Tru
@@raomchelbarber2701 Do you know about GAE's??
I have found few do.
Even climatologists usually do not know.
Seems most don't look into paleo-climatology.
When they do talk about it, they often get the details wrong.
Like the way this video got it wrong about how the ocean becomes anoxic.
The other thing get wrong is the impact of methane.
They don't understand that the 25% impact comes from the calculated impact of a methane leak for legal liability calculations. It's really about 150% worse than CO2.
craig k dillon... if the oceans are warming up, it is caused by the billions or trillions of tons of garbeege that the piggly municipal governments of the world shamelessly dump into the oceans.
Everyone has heard of the poor sea turtles with a stupid McDonalds plastic straw sticking out of their nose because of all that human waste floating around in the oceans. How disgusting!!!
If the Earth is heating up, it's from all that garbeege decaying in the oceans. And all that garbeege gives off HEAT AND CO2 as it decays, so in addition to the cycles of the Sun, without which, there would be no heating at all, it could cause the oceans and then the Earth to heat a tiny bit.
This is because the Lion's share (well over 99.9%) of any heat on Earth is caused by the Sun. Without the Sun, even with the heat of decay going on in the oceans, Earth would just be another ice cube floating around in space.
If you really want the Earth to get cold really fast, just ask God to move the Earth out another 500,000 miles or so from the Sun and see how fast the Earth cools down.
If you don't believe me, look at Mars. It is 35 more million km or miles (not sure which) away from the Sun and its atmosphere is almost all CO2, and it is very cold there, so it is obviously the Sun that heats a planet, not CO2.
Enuf with this global-warming propaganda please!!! Nobody could possibly believe that humans are better at heating the Earth than God's Sun is.
Yes, possibly, an explanation of the acronyms please!
How many times he said " climate change" ?
Climate does change, but the desensitization was obviously orchestrated for maximum effect on the grand finale they produced at the end of the video where they dutifully recited the unscientific, but rather dogmatic incantations, right out of the World Church of Climate Change's basic catechism. Scientists who sell their integrity for money like this should be ashamed of themselves, IMHO.
Exactly how many climate changes have happened over the life of the earth been hotter been colder its a cycle.
Not to mention the difference in co2 and oxygen levels around the world. Just shows money don't change weather lol.
Your post suggests u want to live in a climate change time. U want to live a cataclysmic life. Your comment suggests humans have nothing to do with current climate change warnings. Thats pretty dumb if that is what you are getting at
@clarkpalace It's called a cycle that the earth has done with or with out humans I guess the dinosaurs caused the climate crisis that killed them off to right
A crater has been discovered in the state of New South Wales Australia, a diameter of 540 kilometres, we are waiting for core sample drilling for confirmation.
So how did this "self-reinforcing-event" end ?
What eventualy brought the temperature back to "Livable" again for the dinosaurs to raine for 180 million years ?
How was it revered?
If I remember correctly, it didn't reverse for a long time. The anoxic ocean environment prevented decay. This meant that when the few remaining things that lived died, they didn't decay. Instead they just sank to the bottom of the ocean and turned into carbon deposits. This removed carbon from the atmosphere.
I was thinking the same thing. What made the Earth bounce back, but not Venus? Why did Venus continue to runaway and become the hellscape it is today, but Terra recovered? Plate tectonics? Something else? Did the pull of Luna on Terra impact things as it would have been closer in those times? Did Venus suffer because it didn't have a moon?
@@DrKellieOwczarczakVenus is closer to the sun. It's runaway greenhouse just got amplified.
@@DrKellieOwczarczak In another discussion, somebody explained to me that Venus isn't actually an example of "runaway greenhouse effect." I am not the expert on this, but if I recall correctly, the argument that it is the result of such a runaway process is an example of circular logic. If that is true, it would mean that the current scientific understanding of Venus is inadequate. Also, as you may already know, extending the results of any scientific study to a population beyond the study group is typically problematic if not unscientific. In other words, studying the greenhouse cycle on Earth may not yield anything meaningful about alien processes on other planets.
@@misterlyle. Yes and no. Physics doesn't change between planets, even if conditions do.
Atmospheric pressure is the key. Compare Venus, Earth and Mars' atmospheric pressures. CO2, methane etc, are close to liquid at Venus surface pressures.
CO2 is not now, nor has it ever been, the 'control knob' on our climate. The current madness is a lie. How does Mars with over 90% atmospheric CO2 concentrations NOT have a runaway greenhouse effect, IF the hypothesis was accurate.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the Quaternary period follow temp, by about 700 years lag time. The proxy evidence is pretty clear about that.
A 'cause' cannot follow behind it's 'effect'. That's what we're expected to believe with the AGW greenhouse gas hypothesis though.
Biggest lie since religion. IPCC is anything but 'scientific'. They start with a conclusion and attempt to lie their way backwards. Smh.
That's NOT 'science'. It's propaganda.
wow. imagine the JOY in the reporters if they could have been there reporting on the doom and gloom! they would be in heaven.
Im so happy l found this channel. I love everything doc, especially ancient history about our planet😍👌🙏✌️✌️
Are they sure that a reptile became a mammal?
Just exactly what I thought. I have a lovely female Madagascan Ground Boa, and wouldn't it be weird if she started producing milk 😂
Reptiles didn't turn into mammals, both groups have ties to a common ancestor. No single animal "becomes" another. When populations of creatures start to settle into their environment, small differences that make individuals better at surviving in that environment get passed down, which causes change in the population. Eventually, that population will be in a completely different place from where it started.
So, the sulfur dioxide plunges the planet into a global ice age, but a 5 deg rise puts it into a super serious global warming. A better explanation of how numbers like that relate and less repetition would have made this video more interesting and informative.
The video suggests that both raise and drop of the temperature were simultaneous (!!!) producing a devastating "seesaw effect". Weird.
@@LuisMailhos The effect of SO2 emissions only lasts for a few years, (since the sulphuric acid is water soluble and is therefore rained out of the the atmosphere) so the cooling effect only lasts for about as long as the emissions last. CO2, on the other hand lasts in the atmosphere for thousands of years. So vulcanism lasting for, say, 10,000 years would be accompanied by cooler temperatures due to SO2, even though CO2 levels would be increasing. Once vulcanism stopped the SO2 would disappear and the CO2 warming effect would take over.
You should make the continents of the geological time.
Who was there 250million years ago and is still a life today?
Eh? There was all sorts of life 250 million years ago. However, humans* didn't come along until about 300,000 years ago.
*depends on what you class as human.
So to recap:
1) The Siberian traps opened up, miles and miles of land covered in lava etc
2.a) The volcanic activity releases sulphur dioxide, causing acid rain immediately, and lingering gas in the atmosphere causes rapid global cooling for a few years
2.b) Carbon dioxide also released by the volcanoes causes a global temperature rise of about 5ºC
3.a) The rising temperature changes climate patterns, causing it to simply stop raining in large areas, killing the plants at the base of the food web, causing the rest to collapse (I'm sure there were devastating floods in other areas but they're not mentioned by the video)
3.b) Rising temperatures also cause the oceans to warm up, halting the oceanic currents that normally bring oxygen down to the lower levels of the ocean.
4.a) This in turn makes the ocean a perfect breeding ground for anaerobic bacteria (ones that can't live in the presence of oxygen), which produce hydrogen sulfide, an acid that kills oxygen-dependent creatures. Between heat (which will also kill corals through heat stress) and carbon dioxide dissolving into the ocean, (forming carbonic acid which then neutralizes itself by binding to calcium in the water, leaving less calcium for creatures that need it for their shells and bones), both of which aren't mentioned in the video, as well as hydrogen sulfide, life in the ocean starts dying.
4.b) The warming ocean also starts releasing methane, which has been frozen at the bottom but will unfreeze and turn into gas with just a few degrees of warming - and as methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, once the methane starts being released, it forms a feedback loop where it warms the atmosphere, then the ocean, where more methane will unfreeze the warmer it gets. This eventually raises global atmospheric temperatures by another 10ºC, causing another wave of extinction - again starting with the plants.
At this point, only small burrowing animals could survive, off tubers and roots left alive underground.
This was very interesting, however, combining the asteroid theory with this, it seem possible that a large asteroid strike, could have started a change reaction such as the Siberian trap eruption, like a bulletin striking a object creates more damage on the opposite side, the dominos effect always needs a trigger event…
Yes, leading hypotheses now lay out multiple causes happening about the same time, each very devastating on their own.
One of the surviving creatures was a being that’s only slightly changed over time is known as The Stig!
13:02 This is ridiculously not true, and a needless dramatization. If it had released that amount of lava, there would be a continentally high mountain above Kazakhstan and Mongolia, in the middle of Siberian Russia, higher than most Earth mountains, with the exclusion only of such as the Himalayas, the Andes, Caucasus, the Rockies and the Alps. There would be Kilimanjaro-like colossal mountainous hills there, something possibly resembling the Tibetan (lower, but more wide spread) Himalayas. Instead, we have three massive rivers, and a relatively low plain.
I LOVE THESE VIDEOS …. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER ❤❤
FJB
Life has such power to return again and again
Life is tenacious. I wonder what life forms there are on our solar systems other planets and their moons, since it isn’t necessary for there to be oxygen, sunlight or what’d think was an acceptable temperature range.
Life is so naturally occurring that it is more than likely quite abundant in the trillions of galaxies and within our own galaxy. All the elements of life have been formed by the earlier generations of mega stars cooking those elements, exploding in super nova and spreading them throughout the universe. We are all made of star stuff.
You forgot to mention the position of the continents and that effect on the climate. This was during Pangea which had a devastating effect of drought on large parts of the Earth. Plus the fact there was tremendous vulcanism when Pangea broke apart forming the Mid Atlantic Ridge.
Your clock is way off. I figure 200 Ma would be around 11:55 or so, considering the Earth is 4 Ga (to make the math easier).
And what got us out of this horrible drought you talk about? Enquiring minds want to know!
I realize that mammals didn't exist 250 million years ago. However, it would have been nice to describe the fate of whatever animal that eventually would evolve into mammals.
Interesting, but too grossly repetitious to wade through.
Plastered with propaganda and gaslighting!
No this is scientific and following the scientific method. It is the best way we have to separate facts from your stupidity.
The strategic use of key words, the thinly veiled subtext, yes, lots of propaganda in this one. Propaganda isn't always a bad thing, however, and an educational science documentary isn't actually science itself. It isn't a scientific study nor is it a report on one or more. Science documentaries represent a narrative the producers wish to present, and may leave out inconvenient items that don't fit the vision of the director (among other things). For example, massive volcanic events do occur on time spans of hundreds of millions of years, so there may be one in the future. That could mean ten, twenty, fifty million years or more which isn't mentioned in the narration of the video. By the next one, if humans are still here they will be part of an unimaginably ancient species with abilities that would probably look like magic to us 21st Century primitives.
not sure we can take something called "immucontagionfraud" terribly seriously.....might as well be called "stupidgit" or "wally"
@@fiachramaccana280 Their name makes or breaks anything they have to say, doesn't it.. smh. Idiot.
@@fiachramaccana280 Keep taking your shots.
Fascinating!
The question they didn't answer was: "How did the Earth avoid the fate of Venus"? The Siberian traps and it's effects sound like what happened to Venus.
Yeah! No!
CO2 levels are actually at dangerous low levels historically.
If anything, it’s the return of the ice we should be worried about. We are, after all, still in an Ice Age.
Just go away.
@@nobody687Make me.
Did you see the same clip I saw? It doesn't matter if it is hotter or colder. The Earth is fine. It doesn't need saving.
@francus7227 I'm afraid you've missed the point. Of course, the earth will be fine. It's the life on it that will have the problem
@@nobody687
It keeps bouncing back.
And if/when that happen again, all that Carbon effort... down the drain...
@joseph-mariopelerin7028
Man made climate change is a nonsense anyway
But maybe it doesn’t happen for millions of years. Still worth trying to save our way of life in the present and near future.
What? Did you see the same clip I saw?
If it happened again, the Earth would bounce back again. Duh.
The Earth's core has done a considerable amount of cooling in 250 million years.
@@plainsman
Categorically false. It has cooled. But it has cooled INSIGNIFICANTLY, not considerably.
The sun will become a red giant and engulf the Earth (4-5 billion years) LONG before there's enough time for the Earth's core to cool..... which is estimated to be 91 billion years.
I think that the commenters who are mentioning the repetition might have forgotten this was an hour long program with many commercial breaks, so they summarized often to remind the viewer the sequence of how we got to the current point and reinforce the story.
Now it's earth quakes that destroyed the earth
in 1815 one volcano erupted (Tambora) its effects the next year caused what we now call the year without a summer.
if one volcano can cause this imagine what a series of volcano eruption over a long period of time can do (this video)
A nuclear exchange now , maybe permanent Winter , the Planet will recover , we will not .
……read book, ‘Tambora’ to realise what effects it had on earth. Famines’, cholera pandemics’, horrendous societal reforms’………
Their agenda is by 2032 we will own nothing and be happy. Look it up it's no joke.
Good old Claus and his crunchy cricket burgers.
Yeah, got to watch out for those "they". It would be so simple without "they". Then we would have to concentrate on solving problems if we didn't have they to blame.
“It’s quite a mystery, Sherlock.”
“Sedimentary, my dear Watson.”
I have a drinking game to play to this video:
Every time this sub-par announcer says "global warming" or "climate change", drink. You'll be feeling good in 5 minutes. 😂
So there were no humans yet,but in all these billions of years,but it’s all our fault 🤔🤔
If you can't see the difference between events happening (and ending) hundreds of millions of years ago or just a few years or decades ago, I am not surprised you don't have any clue what you're talking about.
🧐
@@MrHariSheldon Lisa does have a point though
@@user-io9ie5cs8jnope she does not
Exactly @@MrHariSheldon
This is an extraordinary video. I really have enjoyed it. Thanks ❤
It is utter nonsense. NOT science. It is science free.
It is beautifully assembled, with great visuals. There are issues, however, and apparently a number of viewers find it repetitive.
When would this have been filmed? My guess is around 2000.
Mars also went through the same thing almost 3.8 billion years ago.
Since man can do nothing to prevent it we shouldn't worry!!
Don't worry, be happy!😆
This would have been far better had it been presented by a live scientist who faces the camera and explains things.
I disagree, I like it just the way it was done. This way we can use our imagination as to who is narating the video, like maybe even God himself. You never know.
A bit more scientific explanation would be simply splendid
Do you mean the way real scientists explain things?
I detest 'talking heads', especially in the news.
Mm. No. 275 Mya was Siberian traps but also, The New England Supervolcanic district rivals on volume flooded but was exceptionally violent eruptions, I have studied the Torrington batholith and deduced umarguably without question was triggered by impactors. The evidence, natural moisonite remains in secret locations, caused only by impactors causing extreme rebound melt, found in an area where 12 tonne globs of metallic tungsten were dug.... The permian triggered by impactors which hit here in Australia then further south, the impact so large this area was liquified under thick ice, producing the melt on impact so great the decant traps but a result of antipodal energy release..... Moisonite only occurs in extreme impact melt and the Torrington batholith remnant rebound melt forming what we assumed wrongly was exposed lava, indeed however liqufaction by impactors unleashed the permian extinction.
So, what's causing the lake to die now?
As they mentioned in this video, it is due to the fact the lake's inlet/outlet circulation has been blocked somehow. The sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide gases produced by anaerobic bacteria living in the sludge at the bottom of the lake cannot be removed , so it accumulates to toxic levels for oxygen breathers. What they didn't explain here is how or by what mechanism the lake's "circulation" has been blocked. Nearby construction projects? Earthquake activity disrupting water table conduits? Pollution infusion into the lake? Who knows?
Thank you Kerry very interesting.
The asteroid impact and Siberian traps linked somehow? If you throw a mountain sized baseball 40k mph at a planet, will the repercussions manifest on the other side of the planet?
Good question. But which asteroid impact would you be referring to? The Indian Deccan Traps occurred some 66 Mya and the Yucatan meteor impact at the K-T junction happened around the same time. Most geologists agree with the idea that such an alignment of events was likely related. The Siberian Traps, i.e., basaltic lava eruptions happened ca. 250 Mya, as this video mentioned, but an associated meteor impact at that time was not pointed out here. Rather, it is theorized by geologists who study the Siberian basaltic lava eruptions that it was caused by an enormous "mantle plume" raised, without much doubt, by the much stronger tidal forces which existed back then between the Earth and the Moon, owing to the fact that the Moon was considerably closer to Earth at the time. Moon/Earth tidal forces have waned since then, so maybe such an extreme event will be less likely to happen again. Moon/Earth tidal forces still exist of course, fueling the volcanic action we have all over the planet. It is a matter of degree in our era.
You mean you've thrown a mountain at a planet in a distant galaxy...wow!
Da. Daca un strabunic al tau ar fi incasat un pumn acum 40,000 de ani, iar tu l-ai simti abia azi, pentru ca ti-a cazut o caramida in cap. Can asa s-ar manifesta "legatura" dintre evenimentele de acum 250,000,000 de ani si cel de acum 66,000,000 de ani. Primele provocate de activitatea din interiorul planetei, iar al doilea fiind un "bolovan" cazut din cer. Of, Doamne, ce-i in mintea oamenilor?
@kerrychase4839 Just look at Tunguska in 1908 imagine that over a city or civilization. JUST WOW
@@D.o.a I looked at it, and I don't want to look at it again.
Thanks!
From the catastrophic loss of nearly all life on land and in the oceans to such an incredible recreation of life in the oceans and on lands is inexplicable. There is no way that humans are descended from cynodonts.
Nobody can say with all certainty why we are here. I think there has been more than one humanoid species evidenced by the remnants of buildings that are beyond the capacity of modern man in terms of construction methods. Any thoughts anybody?
Our Ancestors have shown us all that there were different beings that came from the Sky & over time, we've lost the knowledge & have forgotten who we really are.. How can different parts of the world tell virtually the same stories that beings came down from the Stars; keeping in mind that people all over the world didn't know the other existed.. I wish I could go back in time & watch how certain events took place
That's a quick path down the racism/master-race/nazism chute. No, humans ten thousand years ago were just as clever as we are now, but they weren't as careful as we are to document everything they knew (and also a lot of the documentation has been lost in events like the burning of the great library) and so we don't know how they did everything they did. People were building stuff in Africa and Europe and Asia and the Americas not because of some master-race telling them what to do, but because they were people, and people like to build stuff.
Add some survivor bias to that, and the situation explains itself. We have a small number of examples of things built with Roman Concrete and it's awesome and still sound 2000 years later. What we don't have are the thousands of examples of Roman Concrete built with inferior ingredients that crumbled within years or decades.
There have been a number of humanoid species, but there's no evidence that any of the others built anything before we out-competed them to extinction. Whether that means they didn't build anything or whether it means everything they built has since crumbled like an unprotected mud brick house in the rainy season, is anyone's guess, but the stuff we have that was built a long time ago, was built by humans just like us.
You're right that we're not the only humanoid species, but wrong about everything else. Our ancestors certainly existed, but they lived harsh and difficult lives with virtually no technology of any kind. And there's certainly no evidence for advanced tech built by any species other than modern humans in the current day. I'm sorry to say, but the people peddling that crap are liars and charlatans looking for clout and attention.
Didn’t this have a better narrator?
Imo this is a unofficial channel that dubs over the original nation with multiple awful text to speech programs.
Yes it was Tim Robbins
Tony Robinson and the series is called Catastrophe Earth. It's on CZcams and 100% better. @@captaingraybeard
@@alansmith72 Tony! That’s right. I have the whole series in a playlist
According to other scientists there was more than one of those rises in temperatures
Pretty much every volcanic eruption is visible from space.
Ok, increase of 20f. How much is the increase in C? 11.11111??
yea, I think thats right... there seems to be 1,8F between every 1 degree C and 20:1,8 is 11,111
The asteroid killed the dinosaurs
I don’t believe that a volcano can do such a thing in the dinosaur time I’m very confused
This video is about an event that happened almost 200 million years before the dinosaurs die off. Dinosaurs weren’t even a thing yet at this point in time.
@coffee1814 have you seen what volcanoes do nowadays. Volcanic eruptions back then were a lot bigger than today's eruptions. Yellowstone has erupted atleast three times.
This was the very first dinosaurs.. the Jurassic was much later
@@spenceisthebest1 they were… these are the very first life the Permian extinction there were creatures on earth before this and it wiped out 95% of life…
I thought the great oxygen catastrophe killed off 98 or 99% of all single cell life in the early oceans.
The dinosaurs resisted switching over to EVs, and, as a result, got what was coming to them.
Should we conclude that a majority of Earth's pyrite was formed 250,000,000 years ago? Or at least "under identical conditions" as those presumed to be in existence them?
You should not conclude that.
FeS is the most common sulfide mineral on Earth, found in igneous rocks, metamorphic rocks, hydrothermal deposits, as well as highly anoxic shales and coal sedimentary rocks laid down well before the Permian.
Interesting theory.
this could have been a two line email
Video held my interest up until it started screaming "man caused global warming"... turned it off right there and then.
Same. Also we wouldn't be here without the extinction event, i dont believe that. Global warming alrarmist never include how plants and trees absorb carbon emissions. Or if our planet warms a few degrees, it would allow for more crops and plant growth. Or how volcanos erupt every year. Yet they want to blame it all on people. I would be more worried about the poles and rotation shift of the earth that supposedly happens every 8000 or 12000 years. Some say the south and north pole have started to shift. and no one can survive a complete flip.. They say that is the reason the one animal was found frozen at the north or south pole with plants not digested in its stomach from near the equater. At the end of the day I would image the earth will survive far beyond on life times unless idiots like bill gates try to block out the sun like he wants to do.
Yea, you're running late for the Trump rally, Bozo.
So many guesses.
Did they have plastic straws back then??
That's what killed the dinosaurs 😂
That's the beauty of science
Yes…they did.
Love that the narrator sounds like Seymour Skinner... ❤
Here's How the "Greenhouse Effect" Works (my 6th great explanation method of the same thing). Suppose there's average 345 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation into the surface and 199 w/m**2 of LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere. Just Suppose. The LWR is manufactured by collisions of infrared-active "Greenhouse Gas" molecules in the troposphere. The fact that the total of 345+199 = 544 w/m**2 isn't split evenly into 272 w/m**2 of downwelling LWR radiation each into the surface and out of the troposphere top means there's a "Greenhouse Effect" from those gases in the troposphere and an obvious measure of "Greenhouse Warming Effect Factor" is 345/199-1 because if they were both 272 then Factor would be 0.000 and if there was more heading up than into the surface then the Factor would be -ve (it would be a cooling Effect).
------
So suppose I calculate how much more GHGs I need to get 1 w/m**2 extra of global heater Earth's energy budget imbalance (EEI) and I add those and mix those GHGs in the troposphere with a big spoon and INSTANTLY 2 things happen:
- LWR radiation heading up from the top of the troposphere drops from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2
- LWR radiation downwelling and penetrating the surface jumps from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2
There's been no temperature change but a global heater of 1 w/m**2, 510 terawatts, 16 Zettajoules / year, just got turned on (the total, net, heater or chiller is the sum of all heaters & chillers in operation).
The reason why LWR up from the top of the troposphere dropped from 199 w/m**2 to 198 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average higher up than before because there are more absorbing molecules to get past, and higher air is colder so it manufactures less LWR (fewer collisions than warmer air and less violent).
The reason why LWR down from the bottom of the troposphere (into the surface) rose from 345 w/m**2 to 346 w/m**2 is that what gets out is manufactured on average lower down than before because there are fewer absorbing molecules to get past, and lower air is warmer so it manufactures more LWR (more collisions than colder air and more violent).
------
That was the "Greenhouse Effect". I omitted the stratosphere because it works backwards for well-mixed GHGs CO2 & O3 (but normal operation for H2O gas) causing slight cooling to offset a bit of the warming so it can't be visualized for both combined. I neglected to bookmark the scientist talk where he showed the calculations from 4 or 5 teams with the Greenhouse Effect at top of troposphere and slightly smaller Greenhouse Effect at TOA because the stratosphere works backwards (just apply my simple correct science explanation but backwards). It's a complicating detail not required to explain the "Greenhouse Effect" physics. It just means my "1 w/m**2 extra of global heater" was a slight exaggeration to keep it all simple, maybe 0.9 or 0.85 or 0.8, I dunno, it's irrelevant).
-------------
So now that I've instantly turned on ~1.0 w/m**2 extra of global heater the ocean, land & air warm over the next 2,000 years and after 2,000 years my 198 w/m**2 above has finally crept back up to 198.95 w/m**2 and warming stops, by which time my 346 w/m**2 downwelling into the surface has jumped to ~347.7 w/m**2 and the warming has stopped. It stopped at 198.95 instead of 199 because the "window" 9-13 microns went up by 0.05 w/m**2. As I pointed out the numbers aren't scientist accuracy because I ignored the stratosphere complication because I'm explaining how it works not calculating a quantity except in the ball park for illustration.
There's no way the Earth could've suffered that kind of cataclysmic disaster without man-made CO2.
The huge flood basalt emitted massive amounts of co2.. didn’t need man to do it… and no men at that time
The very fact, that Earth is capable of something like this, should make You humble and careful to push climatic buttons, not cocky and arrogant.
you can tell you didn't sit in regular class
@@tylerlormand5644 I can also tell that you missed the day they taught us about sarcasm.
@@stefaniebraun3319 That's just it, the Earth has survived massive natural climate swings in the past, and come back more bio-diverse than ever. We've got to get off fossil fuels at some point, simply because we ran out of dinosaurs to make new oil 65 million years ago (also not caused my humans). That doesn't mean we have to freak out in the meantime.
Can we have one now? Please?
"If it werent for those 5% of species surviving.. We would have no life on Earth."
Yeah, no shit
Uhm ok: CO2 has a very SMALL role to play in global temp rise. You can get an idea of the amount of CO2 in the atmo by the leaves "breathing holes : as the video called them" but CO2 can not overcome the amount of global dimming that would occur. You also can not estimate the temperature based SOLEY on the CO2 in the atmo. We have seen time and time again the models have been wrong on every front about CO2 and its effect on planetary temp.
co2 follows temperature. more research
20:33 " it seems that at the beginning of the extinction, levels of carbon dioxide surged."
That pretty well nails it, doesn't it?
For people who like simplistic answers to complex questions, yes.
No it doesn't and in fact it's not even close to the truth.
Yes the wwT increased by +5°C. But CO2 accounted for perhaps 2% of that increase. The continent sized basaltic lava flow a mile+ thick, about 12.144 billion cubic miles, began cooling from >/= 1700°F per the zero and first laws of thermodynamics. That's trillions of trillions of BTUs. Where the hell (literally) do you think that heat from that thermal mass went? It went into the atmosphere.
Heat your stove and your kitchen gets hot. Now imagine a stove cooling from over 1700°F the size of most of North America. The 5° leap in wwT was 98% from the 500k year long cooling of the lava down to surface temperatures, not the GHG effect. That this PhD (piled higher and deeper 🐂💩) doesn't tell you that but emphasized CO2 emissions is absolute proof this puff piece was about propaganda and pushing the CO2 climate hoax.
That fools and morons do not understand that is proof the education systems have been designed to dumb you all down to simple automatrons of little useful value. If you are male, stop playing video games and read real books. If you are female, stop reading Cosmo, pick up a magazine that might expand your mind beyond makeup, breakups and how to be a better lover and grow that pea sized 🧠 inside your head.
The climate increased 0.1°C due to CO2 and 4.9° due to the cooling of that enormous thermal mass (stove) sitting on the surface causing violent convections and winds for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why does this video have a climate change context?
Because it's propaganda.
Because they can’t brainwash you without crying “climate change” at every opportunity. Pretty soon they will be talking about it at the 7th inning stretch at baseball games.
Such BS.
Volcano have an effect on the atmosphere duh
@@Rid3thetig3r🙄 just open your eyes if you cannot believe science
A straight question deserves a staight answer, not wise cracks.
The Permian extinction of 250 million years ago is the most serious example in earth's history of climate change ( a radical lowering of earth and ocean temperature leading to an ice age of one thousand years) caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps volcano that lasted one million years.
I was hoping this was gonna be about the Toba
I've never seen a movie take so long to get the point.
Very repetitive. 25% of the video was repeating information already provided.
It's a American documentary what do you expect!
You are totally wrong.
It's more like 50%
Can't watch anything anymore that doesn't push the climate lies.
Slocan... it is so predictable.
I got less than 1 minute in and immediately figured out that it was another Evolution lie and climate-"crisis" lie, so I tuned out and watched Rambo 4 instead.
What a crock of dog poo the global-warming scam is!!!
I am 70 and I distinctly remember that the weather was exactly the same then in 1959 when I was 6 years old, as it is now... cold in the winter and HOT in the summer.
And we had tons of forest fires back then also.
There is no way that anyone will die from the Earth warming up by 1 or 2 degrees over the next 100 years but chances of dying in a nuclear war are pretty good.
Wake up and put your disaster scenarios into proper priority!
And by the way, nuclear explosions cause many fires that will cover the Earth and generate tons of carbon dioxide.
How's that for "a carbon footprint"?
The images that you saw at the beginning of this climate-hoax propaganda video, is what Earth will look like after a nuclear war.
But there is no need to despair. Whatever hellish conditions exist after the war, God will fix it back to paradise conditions, for those of us who survive God's war of Armageddon, coming soon.
It's geological history. It's the past, not the present or future, and the facts of the Permian extinction are indisputable. Logical thinking is valuable. You should try it some time.
@ 2:17 "space of time" "length of time" etc (groan), why do so many people find it hard to use the correct term, which is: "period" ? An interval of time is simply called a period. Not even a "time period", just plain "period". We don't have periods of length or periods of mass. Time is the only measure of period, so even adding the word 'time" before "period" is redundant.
English is a great language when used correctly.
CO2 is plant food. It’s also essential for life on Earth.
So is water... I dare you to drink 100 liters of it
finish the chapter first
@@enno9612 540 million years ago CO2 was 7000 ppm. Earth cools and warms for other reasons, not the amount of CO2 in the air.
@@enno9612
Wait till they hear about hyperoxia
More co2=more plant growth =healthier biosphere = more food and oxygen = less people freezing to death and starving to death. Why can't anyone think for themselves anymore. Plus when has the climate EVER been static?
Deccan Traps in Siberia
Deccan is in India
Two separate events
@@loveracing1988 I knew I was off somewhere.
Deccan Traps occurred around the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, the catalyst potentially being Chicxulub itself. Siberia was far older and far larger than even that. Siberia may have been part of an antipodal impact event as well, but there's less evidence of that, given how much time has passed.
A lot of holes in this documentary. Warming water does not stagnate or deoxygenate. If the atmosphere cooled, then heated, would that not balance out?
Not as good without Tony Robinson’s original narration!
THE EARTH IS ALWAYS CHANGING AND WHO DO YOU KNOW THAT HAPPENED 250 MILLION YEARS AGO AND KNOW ONE KNOWS WATS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE EARTH IN THE FUTURE 😊
Earth 1 billion years from now would be very different. It will become more like Venus unless we try starlifting the sun to extends it lifespan
We know because geology is a thing. We can also predict, at least, where the continents will go.
In the future, people will have lower case letters and capitals. I can't wait. 😂
@@MattBrownbill Think we'll live to see such a glorious day? 😂🤣
@@narliehs1648I hope so.
Nothing but speculation.
can’t even solve who did 911 but knows what happened 250 million years ago 😂😂
Great documentary, I learned many new things and it was very interesting.
This whole video was very interesting. However, the very last sentences are the typical moralistic scare, which for me being an engineer, just makes no sense if it comes down to "man-made" global warming caused by our own CO2-releases.
The numbers of it are simply much too small by the amount we release in order to tilt a huge system like our atmosphere.
But I personally agree we should get away from fossil fuels since they are sooner or later limited and must be replaced with something modern and reliable.
Having installed many machines for solar panel production all over the world and being an electric engineer, I also do not believe in this technology any longer - it is just another "dirty" technology consuming gigantic amounts of exotic metals and materials plus energies to make them. And in the this technology is not reliable 24/7, has a horrible efficiency rate (less than 25% Peak!!) and a lifespan of 20 years only before these panels need replacement. Then we will sit on a gigantic heap of these panels with no way to go - recycling them will require again big amounts of energy.
Solar panels might be a good and supportive add-on for island nations or similar areas far away from large electricity grids running currently in Diesel-generators 24/7, but they are certainly not a general solution - this is an greenish ideologic illusion.
The only answer it seems might be in nuclear power of the 4th generation, eating up the old left-overs of radioactive materials as well as being self-extinguishing.
I also so do not advocate excessive waste of our resources - whatever they might be. We rather should focus on this subject since there is now no resource left, which is not being over-used, from sea fish, to area, water, sand, metals, wood, oil, ... you name it.
And the only way to do that properly and sustainable is to reduce our own numbers as a species due to education and birth control and by stopping all senseless arm races and wars as the top wastage of resources (besides human lives).
Just look at it, if we just would be half billion, we could all live in nice large houses and drive lovely V8-powered cars and still mother nature could replace the resources being used by doing so.
Besides, it has an huge philosophical aspect. I myself experiences a couple of powerful earthquakes (with lots of damages)and hefty typhoons (incl. major flooding), as well seeing an active volcano with my own eyes.
Nobody can promise the next generation a "stabile environment" - natural events can be so powerful and quick, there is always a real chance, even if quite remote, that the human race will be destroyed completely and quick.
Whoever promises such BS is not doing the next generation a real favour. Natural disasters are part of this planet and only be called so because it threatens human beings and their property. For nature itself it is only nature. So we should stop brainwash our kids with this greenish pseudo-religious believe that we can influence it completely.
Than it is better to enjoy life right now as it is with all its (natural) threats and risks. Every nice day counts.
Peace! from Dresden / Germany
All I need to prove evolution is to read the comments left by the dinosaurs in this comments section. Now where's that massive die off?
Hopefully, still on the way.
Well now we know what's triggered the "glue your hands to the road" climate protesters....
Well, I'm grateful that my SUV had nothing to do with that extinction.
Nice video. NOT to be confused with the KT extinction which took place 65 millions years ago.
No the crustal layer woukd be very thin and a layer of iridium dust that comes only comes from a meteor.
I like Taco Bell.
Mee toooo!
What a great and logical video.
I think our only hope is education reform.
We should teach our children early on the effects of humans living on this planet, and force them to watch videos like this to see what will happen if they sit on their hands and do nothing while watching TikTok videos!
If we train a 6 year old, he/she will be 20 in 14 years and will have a better understanding of how to change their world. Young people are already getting involved. If they don't, who will?
It's their future...
"We should force them to watch videos like this"
If your ideas could stand on their own merit you wouldn't have to force anyone to believe them.
"User" left a negative reply that seems ignorant of how schools "force" kids already? Your idea is strong on merit; I wouldn't mind YT offering "age data" on those of us viewing such videos. CZcams already counts views and logs comments; if we knew that "30%" of viewers were under 18, that would be worth knowing (to me, at least).
But can "age harvesting" be distorted for nefarious reasons? I don't have enough computer expertise to determine this.
@@user-rz7py6ki3f We already force kids to go to school and learn things most don't want to learn.
Your comment screams snow flake.
I love seeing snow flakes melt.
@@ZENmud I'm pretty sure the channel owner gets age data from Google the spy master.
I recall seeing a video of one YT'r showing his income and such from his channel.
Bwahahahahahahaha.
This was an original production by the BBC and Tony Robinson