You know what also works to cut dairy cow methane emission? Not exploiting cows; breeding them to always produce milk, feeding them hormones to increase their milk production, and not stealing their babies away from them. That plus all the agriculture you feed them that you could instead feed to humans.

Your video, Feeding Cattle Seaweed Cuts Methane Significantly, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Red seaweed (e.g., Asparagopsis taxiformis) has been praised for inhibiting methane production from cattle by more than 80 percent because of its high bromoform content. trihalomethanes, such as bromoform decreases methane emissions from cattle belches.
Unfortunately, red seaweed is difficult to farm.

This particular video above is 4 years old, and seaweed supplements are now past the initial testing phase.

A few more recent articles I found include….

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/592243-hold-off-for-now-on-feeding-seaweed-to-cows-to-reduce-methane/

Honestly, that sounds way too good to be true. I'd love to see something about the metabolic pathways that explain how replacing such a small amount of feed could lead to 90% reduction in methane.

This screams for a LOT of replication (and explanation) before anyone gets too excited about it.

Interesting video, though.

19 of the 20 hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the last 21 years.
8 of the hottest 8 years ever recorded were the last 8 years.

Black is not white. Up is not down. Hot is not cold….no matter how many times you say it, Bob. Being too dumb to even understand the science or its implications have you just denying it….like if you don’t understand it must not be true. 🤦‍♂️
It is well known that the right’s MO is to just lie about what their opponent claims, then debunk their own lie, ignoring the actual claims. It’s the best you can do, and the right’s constituents are so intellectually absent, incurious, and not just willing but wanting to be spoon fed propaganda that you buy it without ever investigating a thing. I know this to be true, because everyone who actually looks at the data (and doesn’t just misrepresent it completely) comes to the same conclusion (unless they’re selling something).

2030 did not come from Greta. It came from multiple climate reports, except for those who said we had less time.
It’s a purposeful intent to mislead the public to say the reports say ultimate disaster happens in 2030, they don’t, and the right knows they don’t say that and knows that’s not what climate activists say either…it says at current rates (when the report was written) by 2030 1.5C rise would be locked in, unavoidable. CO2 can last 300-1000 years actively in the atmosphere. Stopping adding CO2 and methane when we are at the line of 1.5C rise is planning for disaster with no backup and no margin for error when the stakes are literally survival of the species and civilization. In fact, rates have increased since the data was collected, so 2030 is too late….2000 may have been too late to stop runaway climate change, but we can still minimize or slow the impacts.

1.5C is when we lose control and feedback loops (likely) take over our ability to have any control. It’s too bad so many idiots are too dumb to comprehend that yet still have the resources to effect the outcome. “Mea culpa” isn’t going to restore the planet when they finally admit the undeniable, neither is their heads on pikes nor their children being used as food, but that’s where we’re going. Too bad we aren’t there yet, it would save a hell of a lot of problems if we just eradicated the irresponsible money worshiping morons in favor of people who put a livable planet above record quarterly profits.

Lol.
Reasontv, the network of the insanity from Stossel, with the stated position that “free market and deregulation is the solution to any and every problem imaginable”. That’s the best you’ve got!?! Then you’ve got NOTHING. You actually complain that CNN isn’t trustworthy, then you post from Reasontv!?! Er mer gerd! 🤦‍♂️ why not just post Beck or Jones?

They completely misrepresent what the report, and climate activists, and politicians have said with bad editing and lies here, no surprise, you posted it, it was guaranteed to be DISHONEST nonsense propaganda.

Land temperatures reached 1.3C above pre industrial norms in 2020. Every prediction made has come true well ahead of schedule. Temperature rise is accelerating, it’s not the flat straight line nor a slowing rate like they showed but an increasing curve. The last 7 years were all in the top 10 hottest ever, the last decade had 9 of the hottest ever, and we are experiencing a global drought never seen by modern man….but according to you, nothing burger, totally normal, chicken little.

https://www.iflscience.com/nine-of-the-top-10-hottest-years-ever-all-occurred-in-the-last-decade-62232

There is one thing I agree with, the “12 years to stop climate disaster” notion (not what the science says btw) is wrong. We have -20 years +-. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere today will effect climate for hundreds to a thousand years, the nitrous oxide for about 120, methane around 10. We have reached the point where natural emissions will soon take over, adding more than humans ever did. Scientists estimate that’s at 1.5C, but every estimate they’ve made public has turned out to be optimistic in the extreme, so 1.5C is almost certainly wishful thinking and 1.25C is more likely the threshold. We can both mitigate the effects and slow the rate of change, but at this point staying below 1.5C is a pipe dream no one is actually even working towards.

I think the reality is that, using current models, assuming no surprises or feedback loops, we have (now 8 ) years before the adding these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will carry us well beyond 1.5C above “normal” with no additional emissions needed….not that we will definitely hit 1.5 by 2030 but we will be able to coast there even with zero emissions.
I know, math and science together, way too hard, better to just listen to the oil spokesmen who say “it’s a hoax, pay no attention to the cities reaching 130F, the unprecedented heat globally, the rapidly melting (or melted) glaciers that historically provide drinking water for 1.9 BILLION people, or the never before seen by man extreme global droughts, they’re all normal and natural and why are you still talking about it?”.

No surprise, one more undeniable, in your face disaster you simply deny exists….like Covid, Jan 6, Russian election interference, -3.5%gdp, Trump terrorism, etc.
Can we have your name so when the global food supply is insufficient we know who’s family to deny food?

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

Congratulations! Your video, Methane Zombie Fire in Yakutia, Russia, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 565 Badge!

Your video, Methane Zombie Fire in Yakutia, Russia, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

Says the dumb fuck who didn't graduate 8th grade, just like his pa and paw paw.

118F, Bob. Shouldn't be over 40F. All time highs broken world wide daily...but nope, Bob knows better than everyone with his 80 IQ and D average through middle school. You are such a dumb fuck it's amazing. I bet you also insist trickle down works for the poor, cigarettes aren't addictive and don't cause cancer, and the sun revolves around the earth carried in a flying chariot. Leave the science to people with brains, please. You only force us to ridicule you when you pretend to know or even understand it.

No Bob. All is lost now thanks to fucking idiotic morons like you.
We have tipped some tipping points, started the natural feedback loops that signal the end of our opportunity to control the changes, there is now no avoiding severe climate change that civilization will not survive, likely humans won't survive at all.

Yes, Bob, actually ALL experts, including UN experts, agree. Climate change isn't a theory, it's reality. It's unavoidable. Now, it's likely unmitigateable and unsurvivable. Your video was from 3 years ago and was overly optimistic then, assuming we would lower emissions rather than ramp them up, things are exponentially worse today because instead of curtailing our emissions we've increased them to over 36.5 BILLION tons per year...if forests were all healthy at 1900 levels they could absorb 7 billion tons, but thanks to deforestation and droughts, that's cut in half or worse. Same goes for the carbon sinks in the ocean, they were absorbing around 7 billion tons a year, now heat and acidity have all but stopped them from absorbing CO2 and destroyed the most diverse ecosystems underwater.
Estimates are 1600 billion tons of carbon are stored in permafrost as methane, which is 25 times as damaging as CO2 in the short term. That's >40 times the carbon humans produce annually, all in the worst of greenhouse gasses, and it's melting out rapidly....exploding out in many cases.

I hope you live long enough to be forced to accept responsibility for your stupidity...something fitting, along the lines of being slowly eaten alive by your family for days before they're murdered by a mob of survivors for their water before you die in agony, limbless, dehydrated, and burnt to a crisp. You deserve no less.

Such an unbelievable bat shit crazy moron you've become.

Before "someone" spouts off about this being a singular, isolated weather event in America and Canada, it's happening world wide.
All time record high temperatures are also happening in Europe, Asia, Africa including ground temperatures in Siberia above the arctic circle at 118F, not so good for permafrost that should be near freezing. Mexico has seen all time high temperatures for June exceeding 125F, nighttime low temperatures are also shattering all time highs like 105F overnight in palm springs, and over 70F was the overnight low in S Africa (southern hemisphere) on the WINTER solstice. Let's not forget, June is typically the coolest summer month.
It's hard to imagine this not triggering feedback loops like permafrost releasing methane and less ice reflecting heat that are each, by themselves, more than we could possibly counteract with current technology with an unlimited budget and the collective will to try. Combined, and without the unlimited funds or collective will to act, it's looking like game over, man.
Somehow "we told you so" hardly seems sufficient.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/heat-wave-russia-brings-record-breaking-temperatures-north/story?id=78446355

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2021/06/22/wild-high-temperatures-worldwide-show-the-extent-of-record-june-heat-wave/?sh=496b6bc05668

Such nonsense.
Biden did not approve, nor is he helping build this pipeline. He chose to not sanction one Swiss company helping build the last 90 miles, but is still sanctioning Russian companies involved, and is likely to block it's certification and insurance (by banning any insurer from using international or US banking) without guarantees the Ukrainian pipeline won't be abandoned.
He decided not making Germany go dark was a better plan, not alienating a long term ally and strategic partner that we are trying to repair our severely damaged relationship with.
He also decided putting Russia in bed with the Chinese, their other option for selling their gas, was not a smart move.
He is clear, he is against this pipeline and is still sanctioning many Russian companies involved in it's construction.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/politics/us-nord-stream-decision/index.html

Those grapes must be really sour today @bobknight33, they've got your yummy tears flowing like a firehose....keep em coming. So yummy, you guys.

Edit: I'm curious why America SHOULD hold veto power over international projects approved by all involved countries on other continents. Should we stop pipelines because Putin says so? He could stop hacking them and just tell us to quit. It seems ridiculous that we are telling Germany they can't have more natural gas, and telling Russia they can't sell it.
For clarification, I'm against it for ecological reasons, yes gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil, but produces way more methane which is >25 times more destructive per molecule in the short term. 11 billion could have built any number of wave/tidal generation facilities that run 24/7 without a new source of greenhouse gases.

No....with a "but".

I was disturbed in the 70's about how people were changing the planet, but didn't yet understand the climate portion of that issue would be the most disastrous. (In my defense I was under 10).

I became concerned in the 90's-2000's when the scientific conclusions became overwhelmingly certain that CO² and other greenhouse gasses were destroying the atmosphere we relied on.

My concern quickly turned to anger at the realisation that people as a group were more inclined to argue over minutiae and ignorant theories and money rather than tackle the apocalyptic problem.

Soon that was mixed with depression at the realisation that it was too late even if we gave up CO² and methane today because the climate is slow to react and we had passed the point of no return and were actually still accelerating towards the cliff and arguing over the correct radio station for flying.

Today I'm at acceptance that humans will destroy the biosphere and likely themselves in the process, and have to be content with the knowledge that I didn't make it much worse (or at least made an educated effort to not make it worse), I likely won't live to see mass famine and water wars where I live, and didn't put anyone else in the horrific position of having to live through the worst. (No kids).

Feel better? ;-)

Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.